Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank

General Sir Charles Ronald Llewelyn Guthrie, GCB, LVO, OBE, having been created Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, of Craigiebank in the City of Dundee, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and the Lord Carrington.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market

The Right Honourable John Roddick Russell MacGregor, OBE, having been created Baron MacGregor of Pulham Market, of Pulham Market in the County of Norfolk, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the Lord Howe of Aberavon.
	Lord Thomas of Swynnerton--Took the Oath.

The Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have to inform the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received a letter from the Clerk of the Central Criminal Court informing him that the Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare was, on 19th July 2001, convicted of two counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice and two counts of perjury and was sentenced to a term of four years imprisonment.

EU Directive on Third Country Nationals

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the proposal from the European Commission for a directive on third-country nationals who are long-term residents of a member state of the European Union.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government will announce their decision very shortly. Given the fact that the deadline is the 28th of this month, I can say that it will be before the end of this week.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very precise Answer. In view of the relevance of the directive to the UK's business and public service employers, which employers' organisations have the Government consulted on the draft directive? For instance, have they consulted the Engineering Employers' Federation or employers of medical professionals?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The directive will be important to many professionals. The Government have undertaken a consultation process on this issue. I do not have with me a list of the employers' organisations concerned. However, I have made inquiries as to whether there has been intensive lobbying by employers' organisations, and the answer is no, there has not been.
	But, of course, the proposed directive will affect only those third country nationals who have worked in a member state for more than five years and have not become EU citizens. Only a very limited group of people in this country will benefit from the directive.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, what would be the effect of a decision to opt out of the protocol on the free movement within the European Community of third country nationals who are settled in the United Kingdom? Would such a decision affect them? If so, would it represent a breach of the Human Rights Act?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would not affect them any more than it does presently. Third country nationals who have been resident in this country for more than five years would not have the benefit of free movement within the European Union. That is not to say that they would not be eligible to apply for separate jobs. Employees of companies would not be affected; people moving within the same company can do so in a straightforward way. We are talking about seeking individual employment. That is why the numbers are much reduced from the totality of third country nationals present in this country.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a third party national who has been resident in the UK for a very long time. In the past, although my qualifications as a dentist were acceptable in this country, I could not have practised in the European Community. I no longer have a personal financial interest in doing so as I have retired from dentistry. Are people in my position still unable to practise anywhere else in the European Union?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, having not been given notice of that question, I regret that I am unable to answer it. I do not believe that the directive affects people in terms of qualifications. It affects their free movement; there will be no free movement if we do not opt in. We have not made a final decision. A narrow group of people would be affected; namely, those who have been resident here for over five years as third country nationals and who have not chosen to take British citizenship for whatever reason--it would normally have been open to them to do so.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the UK is experiencing a shortage of low skills labour, and that some of that is met by illegal labour, with all the attendant problems? Sadly, these include exploitation and poor health and safety regulation. Does the Minister accept that opting in to the directive would provide the UK with an accessible pool of labour, which it badly needs?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, if we were simply seeking a pool of less skilled labour, that would not be a justification for opting in. However, the noble Baroness raises an important point. Any change to facilitate entry to this country for employment purposes must take account of the fact that the employment market here is lightly regulated. That leaves people open to exploitation. It would be no good allowing people to be employed illegally, or to be in bondage, in circumstances where corners are cut--whether in terms of health and safety, income tax or national insurance--with the result that legitimate employers, paying the proper rate, would be put out of business.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, what are the benefits and burdens of deciding to opt in to the directive?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the matter is fairly straightforward. We in this country insist on maintaining the right to decide who is resident here.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister has said that there will be an announcement this week. Will he consider taking the opportunity to make that announcement later this afternoon during our debate on the subject--at least while Parliament is still sitting? I should be grateful if the Minister could stir some action during the next three or four hours. Secondly, which other EU countries have opted out of the directive?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the second point, it is not possible to say. The deadline is the 28th of this month, and decisions may not yet have been made. As to the noble Viscount's first point, I have already given the matter consideration, because it looks bad when decisions are made just after Parliament goes into Recess. We have taken the full three months to which we are entitled, and we have not yet received final clearance on a decision through the Whitehall machine. I do not expect to do so before replying to the debate later today.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I find it strange that the Minister should say that a decision has not been made. We were told last Wednesday, in evidence to Sub-Committee F, that no decision had been made. However, I have in front of me a government response stating:
	"The Government does not support the extension of the right of free movement to legally resident third country nationals".
	What is the Minister's response?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. We do not. However, we have not yet made a formal decision through the government machine.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not playing with words. In evidence given to the Select Committee, which will be debated later today, the Government's general view on the directive was made abundantly clear by my predecessor, Barbara Roche: by and large we are not in favour of it.

Lord Elton: My Lords, what is the definition in this context of the "government machine"? Which bit of it does not know?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is a former Minister. It was a great shock to me when I first became a Minister, in 1997, to find that decision-making throughout the whole ministerial machine was by correspondence--by letters whizzing around the system. So far as concerns this decision, the letters have gone round; however, final clearance through the government machine has not yet been given.

Earl Russell: My Lords, when is a decision not a decision?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have not got a decision on this matter. There is a system of Cabinet sub-committees and clearance through the Whitehall machine, and that clearance has not yet been given. That means that I am in no position to say that the Government have made a decision.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister telling the House that the Government are against the directive, that they have made up their mind, but that they have not made a decision?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have the authority from the Cabinet sub-committees to state that we have made a decision. We have not. That is the plain fact of the matter. To be honest, a previous Minister ought to know better than to ask such a question.

Chief Constables: Removal from Office

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Home Secretary will publish the criteria he applies in deciding whether to encourage the removal of a chief constable from office.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, under Section 11 of the Police Act 1996, a police authority may call on a chief officer to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Under Section 42 of the Act, the Secretary of State may require a police authority to exercise its powers under Section 11. There are no set criteria for the exercise of those powers by the police authority or the Secretary of State.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reading to the House the part of the Act that I had discovered for myself. Does the Minister agree, first, that it was extremely bad management not to afford the Chief Constable of Sussex at least the courtesy of meeting him personally ahead of his leaving the force? Secondly, is it not also very bad form to issue a press release ahead of a decision being taken either by the chief constable or by the authority?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Home Secretary does not employ chief constables. The Home Secretary wrote to the police authority, as he is entitled to do. All he did was to remind the authority of its statutory duty in this respect. I do not know the consequences as regards when the press release was issued, or, indeed, when the letter was published. However, this is a major issue of public policy, which the Home Secretary was quite entitled to draw to the attention of the police authority so as to enable it to consider whether or not to make a decision. In the event, the policy authority did not: the chief constable chose to retire.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the incident that led to the retirement of the Chief Constable of Sussex came about as a direct result of the investigation that was carried out by the Police Complaints Authority which recommended particular disciplinary action that was subsequently taken by the Sussex police authority? Can the Minister tell the House what additional ground the Home Secretary had which enabled him to recommend to the Sussex police authority this retirement, bearing in mind that such disciplinary action had already been taken?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Home Secretary simply reminded the police authority of its duties. Indeed, in the letter, which is a matter of public record, he said:
	"I expect you to consider the full range of statutory powers which are available to you, including whether the police authority believes it would be right to use its powers under Section 11 to require this chief constable to step down".
	In questions regarding matters of efficiency and effectiveness, I do not believe that anyone could argue that events--even those of the days preceding the sending of that letter--relating to officers involved in the issue who were, as it were, cleared by the courts, brought matters to a head publicly. The Home Secretary was quite within his rights simply to draw the attention of the police authority to the powers available and to ask those concerned to consider whether or not to use them.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the letter was quite unique? Was it really possible either for the Chief Constable of Sussex to stay in position or, if he did so, for the police authority not to get rid of him after the letter written by the Home Secretary had been released?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. The letter probably is unique. There have not been many occasions when chief officers have been required to resign; indeed, I believe that there have been about three such cases in the past 25 years. That does not include the present case, because matters did not progress to that stage. It is possible that the force of the questions in the letter--there were no instructions--left the authority with a course of action that it was sensible to take. It was a strong, powerfully-worded letter that simply asked the authority to take account of its statutory responsibilities, and to consider all the circumstances. I believe that the Home Secretary was entitled to do that.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Home Secretary write a similar letter on every occasion when the conduct of a chief constable is in question? If that is not the case, does the Minister agree that this was a very clear directive, even if not expressed as an executive order?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I suspect that the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is no; that is certainly not so. But let us face the facts. There was an inquiry into the original shooting that raised considerable questions about the corporate governance of this police force. Therefore, the Home Secretary was entitled to take the view that he adopted.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the letter in question. Does the Minister agree that the letter that was sent out would have been a matter for the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable had it not been for a press release that was issued simultaneously and which was extremely provocative in its wording?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, although I remember seeing the press release I do not have a copy with me. I do not apologise. This is not something that we were doing behind closed doors. We did not make any point about doing this behind closed doors. It is a matter of public policy as regards the police service in this country, the family involved and the people concerned in the incident. The matter is not closed. Some officers are still under suspension and subject to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it would be unwise for me to deal any further with such issues.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans to amend, or in any way to change, the conditions of service of chief police officers?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. However, it is fair to point out that we believe that there should be clear and objective procedures for assessing the personal performance of chief officers. We are in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and others, so as to put in place such procedures. I do not think that they would have changed the outcome in these circumstances, but, nevertheless, more work needs to be carried out as regards assessing the personal performance of chief officers; and that is underway.

Passenger Trains: Sewage Discharge

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of toilets on passenger trains in the United Kingdom now drain into retention tanks; and, from the remainder, how many tonnes of raw sewage are estimated to be discharged every year on the railway track.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the information is not available in the precise form requested. I can tell the House that 38 per cent of passenger trains do not discharge sewage on the railway track, either because they have toilets that drain into retention tanks or because they do not have toilets. It is estimated that from passenger trains with toilets that do not drain into retention tanks approximately 4,000 tonnes of raw sewage is discharged on railway tracks every year.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most helpful Answer. I declare an interest--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Wilcox: I live in Cornwall and travel each weekend to St Austell in old rolling stock--a journey of 300 miles, both there and back. Given that the Minister has just referred to the fact that only 38 per cent of passenger trains do not discharge sewage in this way, it fills me with horror to think that there are 947 million passenger journeys taking place on national railways in Great Britain. That gives us some idea of the size of the problem. Does the Minister agree that the present state of affairs is not very satisfactory? My biggest worry is that those who are looking after our interests while working on the tracks are being exposed to danger. Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government have a policy for urgently securing improvements in this area?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a code of practice was adopted by the rail industry in 1996. It stated that all new rolling stock with a toilet should also have a retention tank installed underneath its frame. By December 2004, all the older rolling stock on London commuter services will have been replaced. Therefore, the vast majority of London commuter trains will have retention tanks by that time. It will take longer for long distance and other services to meet those requirements. I cannot tell the House the precise time in that respect. However, a process of change is taking place.
	The noble Baroness expressed concern about those who have to work on the tracks. The danger that arises in this situation would obviously be worse for those who actually work on the underside of carriages that have toilets, but no retention tanks. A study was carried out some years ago which indicated that the risk of infection associated with working on vehicle underframes is insignificant, provided that normal hygienic precautions are observed. It also found that the level of risk is similar to that of changing a baby's nappy.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the state of tracks, especially in our stations--and, indeed, in our terminal stations in London--leaves a great deal to be desired, not only because of the problem of the discharge of sewage on to the tracks but also because of litter and other rubbish that seems to be left where it falls, without being picked up? In view of the fact that the Railtrack corporate responsibility report states that station litter contracts require discharges on our tracks at stations to be removed, will my noble and learned friend draw the attention of Railtrack to the unsatisfactory situation in stations and ensure that that requirement is followed through?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the responsibility rests with Railtrack. I note his concern, which I shall certainly pass on.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister referred to trains with toilets and those without such amenities. But what about trains with toilets that do not work? What sort of sanitary problems does that situation create?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, one would very much hope that those trains that do have toilets work--that is, both the toilets and the trains themselves.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that old rolling stock without retention tanks could not be licensed by the HSE if they were introduced now. Given that it is possible to "retro" fit tanks, why is that not required?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have no firm estimate of how much it would cost to fit a retention tank to an existing train. The Association of Train Operating Companies states that that would cost at least several thousand pounds. Rather than taking existing trains out of service to get them fitted, it would be more practical to introduce retention tanks as new rolling stock comes on stream.

Local Government Act: "Best Value Officers"

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many "Best Value Officers" have been appointed under the Local Government Act 1999; and how useful they have proved to be.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the information requested is not held centrally. Decisions on officer responsibilities on best value are up to each authority. But whatever titles are used, best value is mainstream business and should be central to the work of all local authority staff. Authorities need to concentrate on performance and delivering step change in local services.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply, I am left wondering what are the functions of best value officers, what are their qualifications for performing those functions and what form of reward they receive for doing so. If by any chance some of these gentlemen have some spare time on their hands, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider trying to make arrangements for them to be lent to, say, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to assist with their building projects?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the purpose of best value is to ensure that local authorities spend their money economically, efficiently and effectively. They spend more than £50 billion of public money. It seems entirely appropriate that local authorities should prepare plans to enable the public to see how they will deliver those objectives.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the legislation was going through the House Ministers gave assurances that the performance indicators which local authorities are asked to address would be reviewed quickly and, indeed, that local authorities would be given the opportunity to set their own performance indicators because, as we all know, money spent locally is best spent when it addresses local circumstances. Can the Minister give us any news on that?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that assurance was given. It takes time to develop the right number of performance indicators. The number of performance indicators that authorities are required to monitor has been cut by about a third to reduce the burden on local authorities.

Lord King of West Bromwich: My Lords, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council--of which I was leader until 22nd May 2001--introduced best value in a big way. It has made a marked improvement in our service delivery to the people of Sandwell. The cost of introducing the best value system was relatively lower than it would have been if that same amount of work had been undertaken by consultants. Furthermore, we believe that the long-term benefits will be substantially greater. Does the Minister agree that the introduction of best value was a much needed and overdue initiative?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the best value regime was overdue and was needed. I also agree with him that it has brought considerable benefits to the people who receive local authority services, including the people of Sandwell to whom my noble friend referred.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that this is all about delivering step change in local services. What does that mean?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not recall using either of those terms. I said that the purpose of best value is to ensure that money is spent economically, effectively and efficiently. I believe that that is what all of us would want.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord talked about delivering step change in local services. I do not know what that is. I do not know whether other noble Lords know, but I hope that the Minister will define the meaning of that phrase.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is to improve the services delivered by local authorities in a meaningful and clear way.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, certainly in Leeds, the system has brought significant savings and has enabled the council to find new ways of doing things and to provide truly best value for money? Is he further aware that local government believes that it has broken away from the climate of survival under competitive tendering and has entered one that welcomes change and enables councils to find truly best value and a better way of doing things?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware that best value has resulted in material improvement in the services delivered by many, many councils. I refer to a significant statistic; namely, that 87 per cent of chief executives of local authorities when asked said that they would have produced a best value performance plan even if they had not been required to do so. Surely any organisation should look at the services it delivers, determine what is the most effective way to deliver them and tell its clients how it is doing that. That is surely the least that people can expect.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister wish that he had had a best value officer beside him when he was the Minister responsible for the Dome?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, best value can bring improvements everywhere.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, before asking the Minister a question, I should perhaps first declare a past interest in that I served for six years on the Audit Commission. Much of that time was spent trying to get the word "value" into compulsory competitive tendering, which lasted for 18 years and did, I believe, a great deal of damage to local authorities. After just a year's experience of the new system incorporating value, does he see great possibilities of success under the new regime?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, while discussing this question local authority leaders have mentioned the effectiveness of best value. It is much more effective than compulsory competitive tendering as that focused only on a very small number of services and focused only on obtaining the cheapest service, not the best.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister the question that I put to his noble friend Lord Whitty on 10th May, and which he--I am sure inadvertently--did not address in replying. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether the inspection of the system is costing more or less than the £50 million that it was estimated it would cost?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the precise cost of that but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, on the strength of what the noble and learned Lord has said, does he realise that he and the Government deserve the warmest congratulations on this splendid measure? Does he also realise that we simply cannot wait for the time when best value officers are imported into every government department?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the measure brings to local government accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and the economic use of resources. That is a good thing.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Luke: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
	Will Her Majesty's Government confirm that they are ceasing to disinfect farms which have been contaminated by foot and mouth disease and, if so, on what grounds.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government are not ceasing to cleanse and disinfect contaminated farms. Cleansing and disinfection which takes place immediately after animals have been slaughtered, and which is designed to prevent the spread of disease, continues at government expense.
	Secondary cleansing and disinfection, which is aimed at preventing recurrence of disease when farms are restocked, takes place later and over a longer time-scale. It can be paid for either by the farmer or by the Government; there is no legal obligation on Her Majesty's Government to pay.
	The Government are currently reviewing the arrangements for secondary disinfection in the light of management data which suggest that the costs involved are higher than might reasonably be expected. However, at this stage these higher than anticipated figures are just estimates. To date some £75 million has been paid out. It seems right in the light of this developing information to review the basis on which this secondary cleansing and disinfection work is carried out and on which costs are being calculated.
	We also need to re-examine arrangements with contractors to ensure that proper value for money is being attained. While this review is being carried out we are temporarily halting further expenditure on secondary cleansing and disinfection work.
	In the interim, if they are anxious to make early progress, farmers can continue at their own expense cleansing work which has already begun. We must emphasise that preliminary cleansing and disinfection work will continue to be carried out at the Government's expense.

Lord Luke: My Lords, is this not a further example of the shambles into which the Government's policy on foot and mouth has descended? Surely data regarding costs of farm cleaning have been available since last February. What has the statistical section of the department been doing all this time? For long-suffering farmers, is this not the final straw in an extended line of broken promises?

Lord Carter: My Lords, as I said, the pay out to date has been £75 million. The secondary cleansing and disinfection started only in June with regard to the earliest outbreaks. Until the invoices began to come in, it was not clear what the costs would be. The earliest estimates indicated costs that the Government found surprising. We feel that the time to cost and forecast is now in order to have proper control of public expenditure.
	I am interested in the noble Lord's remarks. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords opposite what happened in the BSE outbreak when the previous administration negotiated a scheme with the renderers. It is a great pity that that scheme was not quickly reviewed. At the time the government were warned about excessive costs. I was one of those who warned them. They did nothing. When they eventually renegotiated, there was a considerable cost saving.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches have called consistently for a cohesive, all-embracing emergency plan to be put in place region by region. Had that been done, those contracts could have been overseen by the public sector which has overseen effectively those parts of this fiasco that it was able to oversee. Would it not be better to have one consistent plan rather than a U-turn every time the Prime Minister becomes involved? Although we have been assured that the primary biosecurity measures will be in place, the secondary ones will not. The situation has been mishandled. I must again call for a public inquiry.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we have a plan. The incidence of FMD is decreasing rapidly, as the noble Baroness knows. But it is not decreasing as fast as we would like. We want to learn lessons from this outbreak. We look forward to an inquiry when the outbreak is over. That is the sensible time to have an inquiry. That inquiry will be open and will get at the facts. It will not be unnecessarily long drawn out or expensive.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, how long will the review take; and why did it not take place earlier?

Lord Carter: My Lords, it will take not more than two weeks. It did not take place earlier because the secondary cleansing and disinfection had to begin first. We have paid out only £75 million. Immediately the invoices began to come in, the Government stopped it and are having a review which will last no more than two weeks.
	The quality of invoicing is both poor and variable. Inclusion of some items is definitely open to question. The review is intended to improve the basis of payment and to put it on a proper footing for the control of public expenditure.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the Government naturally wish to get best value on this as on everything else. However, does not basic justice require that if secondary cleansing has been paid for at government expense to some farmers it must be so paid to all farmers? Is the Minister prepared to give the undertaking that once the review has taken place and perhaps more effective pricing mechanisms put in place the Government will continue to pay for secondary cleansing on all those farms which need it?

Lord Carter: My Lords, I cannot give that undertaking because the purpose of the review is to find out the proper basis for payment and control of public expenditure. There is no statutory obligation on the Government to pay for the secondary cleansing. They are doing so at present. As soon as it started, it was clear that the costs were unacceptably high. That is why they are being reviewed. We intend to control public expenditure and to deal fairly with farmers.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the average cost of disinfecting farms in Scotland is about a quarter of the reported cost in England and Wales? How do the Government explain that difference? Is there not a case for investigating extraordinary and exorbitant charges in England and Wales?

Lord Carter: My Lords, that is exactly the purpose of the review: to find out the reason for the difference and to deal with it quickly.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, some of us believe that it is entirely correct that the First Lord of the Treasury should take an interest in the costs of any department. However, will the Minister confirm the reports on television that such action is costing £2 million a day? I make that £730 million a year. Will the noble Lord also confirm that those costs are well out of line with costs from other parts of the country and Europe?

Lord Carter: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord is correct. We understand that the average payment for cleansing and disinfection in Europe is about one-tenth of the compensation which is paid for animals. At present in this country the payment for cleansing and disinfection roughly equals the amount of compensation paid for animals.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the factor missing from the Minister's reply is whether the secondary disinfection is necessary to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease. If necessary, at the end of the day the cost will have to be carried by the Government. The noble Lord cites the figure of £75 million. Does he set that against the cost of the £2 billion to £3 billion that the foot and mouth disease has to date cost the country? Is the secondary disinfection necessary?

Lord Carter: My Lords, it is necessary for restocking. The purpose of the review is to get a proper basis for payment for cleansing and disinfection. The review will take only two weeks. The figure paid at present is clearly not correct in the light of the Scottish experience, European costs and other factors which are coming to light. The Government are exercising their duty to protect the expenditure of public funds on such an important issue and to ensure that the right amount is paid for the right job. Certain matters are being included in the invoices which are clearly not part of the requirement for secondary cleansing and disinfection. As I said--I chose my words with care--the quality of the invoicing is both poor and variable.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, are the contracts made by individual farmers or representatives of the department?

Lord Carter: My Lords, contracts are made between the department and the contractor. It is the nature of those contracts, what is included in them and what should be paid for which is to be looked at.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be aware that the headline news on the BBC radio and television was that Her Majesty's Government were about to cease disinfection of infected premises. I am sure the noble Lord will give us an absolute assurance that disinfection will not cease. Following an outbreak--whether initial or secondary--the virus cannot be got rid of easily without a thorough and rigorous disinfection procedure.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We are pleased to be able to answer this Private Notice Question to get the facts on the record. Not for the first time, the media were just plain wrong. We are not ceasing to cleanse and disinfect contaminated farms. The primary cleansing and disinfection continues at government expense on all infected farms. It takes place immediately after slaughter. The secondary cleansing and disinfection takes place some time later, as the noble Lord well knows, when the farmer has to start the process of getting the farm ready for restocking. That only began in June with regard to the earliest outbreaks. As soon as the figures started to come in, we called a temporary halt--we hope for only two weeks or less--to get the facts right, the contracts right and to ensure that the proper money is being paid. The noble Lord is correct. We are not ceasing to cleanse and disinfect contaminated premises.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the European Parliamentary Elections Acts 1978, 1993 and 1999. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(The Lord Chancellor.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The Motion is consequential on the House's agreement last Tuesday to the first report from the Procedure Committee. As usual, therefore, it has been placed early in the following business.
	The Procedure Committee recommended new terms of reference for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and certain changes to Standing Orders necessitated by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. That is the reason for the amendments to Standing Orders 40 and 72. The committee also recommended that Standing Order 50, on the printing of Bills, should apply to any Explanatory Notes accompanying a Bill. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
	Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper)
	Leave out Standing Order 40(6) and insert:
	"(6) Any Motion relating to a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on a draft order laid under Section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or on a draft order laid under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 shall be entered before a Motion to approve that draft order."
	Standing Order 50 (Printing of Bills brought from the Commons): In Standing Order 50(1), at end insert "and any Explanatory Notes thereto."
	Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments)
	Leave out Standing Order 72(1) and insert:
	"(1) No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an affirmative instrument shall be moved until:
	(a) except in the case of any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, or a draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, or a draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
	(b) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, or a draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and
	(c) in the case of a hybrid instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated".--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report

Lord Tordoff: rose to move, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 16) be agreed to.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I dare say there will be a number of questions. I shall try to answer some of them in advance. On accommodation, noble Lords will be pleased to know that 169 desks for Members will become available over the Summer Recess. We now have the preliminary results of the survey that was conducted. I am pleased to say that we have had more than 400 replies. Some 80 or 90 Members said that they did not want any accommodation. That leaves some elbow room.
	The request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the return of some rooms that were given up some time ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was considered by the Administration and Works Committee and the Offices Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave an address to the Offices Committee to explain why his private office needed the extra rooms. His reasons were accepted. The 13 Conservative Members who are currently occupying the rooms have been offered alternative accommodation, which I believe is on the first floor, West Front, which may be an improvement on what they currently have. Overall, we have gained a considerable number of rooms.
	I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the proposals on free post for Members, based on the suggestions of the Senior Salaries Review Body, have been agreed. Restrictions similar to those in place in the Commons have been set out in the report. If the report is accepted today, as I hope it will be, Members will be entitled to free postage as of tomorrow morning, but the full system that will provide pre-paid envelopes will not be in place until the end of the Summer Recess. As an interim measure, Members may bring their addressed letters to the Attendants' Office in the Peers' Lobby, where they will be franked with a first class hand stamp.
	I do not know whether there are any other matters that I need to go into at this moment, but doubtless noble Lords will want to ask some questions. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 16) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
	1. Membership of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee
	The Committee appointed Viscount Goschen to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee in place of the Earl of Courtown.
	2. Accommodation
	The Committee agreed that rooms S/02 and S/03 on the Principal Mezzanine Floor of the Palace should be handed over to the Lord Chancellor's Department. In presenting his case the Lord Chancellor explained that his duties as Speaker required him to be based in the House of Lords, and that he therefore needed a small private office within the Palace. The Department's existing accommodation in the Palace was severely overcrowded, and the new responsibilities which had recently been transferred to the Department would require the addition of a small number of new staff.
	The Committee noted that in October over 150 new desks for Members will become available in the Palace, Millbank House (next to 7 Little College Street), and 7 Old Palace Yard (opposite the peers' car park).
	At its meeting on 20th March 2001 the Committee agreed that the Leaders of the parties and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers should request that the Commons hand over to the Lords the offices on the Upper Committee Corridor South. The Committee learnt that the Commons had refused this request, and agreed that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip should discuss the matter further with the Leader of the House of Commons.
	3. Free postage for Members' correspondence on House of Lords' Business
	The Senior Salaries Review Body recommended in its review of parliamentary pay and allowances that Members should have access to free postage for correspondence on House of Lords' business.
	The Committee agreed the following arrangements to implement this proposal:
	(a) Free postage should be made available by means of the provision of post-paid envelopes and postcards, available for collection at the House of Lords and for use by Members from any location in the UK.
	(b) Post-paid envelopes and cards may not be used:
	(i) for correspondence of a business, commercial or personal nature;
	(ii) for the correspondence of a parliamentary group which includes persons other than parliamentarians;
	(iii) in connection with party political fund raising or campaigning;
	(iv) for issuing circulars of any description (ie an unsolicited letter sent in identical or near identical form to a number of addresses);
	(v) for internal mail (mail within the Parliamentary estate); and
	(vi) for overseas mail.
	These restrictions are similar to those which apply in the House of Commons.
	(c) Members should be issued with guidance on the above restrictions and should be reminded of the need to avoid wastage of post-paid envelopes, which the House will have paid for in advance. There should, however, be no formal limit on the number of pre-paid envelopes available to Members,
	(d) Demand for free postage should be monitored (and its use subject to audit). Any apparent irregularity in the use of free postage would be a matter for Black Rod, the appropriate Chief Whip or the Convenor.
	(e) For an interim period until the House returns in October, when the post-paid envelopes and cards will be available, Members should be able to hand mail on House of Lords business to the Attendants' Office to be franked and posted from the House.
	4. Lords reimbursement allowances
	The Committee took note of the annual uprating, in line with the retail price index, of the motor mileage allowance and the bicycle allowance, with effect from 1st April 2001.
	The motor mileage allowance has been uprated from 52.5 pence per mile to 53.7 pence per mile for the first 20,000 miles, and from 24.2 pence per mile to 24.8 pence per mile for any further mileage.
	The bicycle allowance has been uprated from 6.7 pence per mile to 6.9 pence per mile.
	5. Presentation of a casket of sand from the Normandy beaches
	The Committee agreed to a proposal by the Normandy Veterans' Association to present to the Palace of Westminster a casket containing sand taken from the five Normandy beaches. The casket will be placed in the Royal Gallery, near the piece of the Dunkirk jetty presented to the House in 1972.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the House of Commons give any reason for not wishing to give up the offices on the Upper Committee Corridor South? I ask because the House of Commons has recently benefited from the additional space provided by Portcullis House. Members of the House of Commons and their staff now rightly have adequate accommodation. I do not say that they are palatially housed, but they are very well housed. It seems odd that in this House, where Members sometimes have to share desks--although perhaps not for much longer--and are certainly in cramped conditions, three or four offices that are within the House of Lords estate cannot be handed back to us.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I warmly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Without too much exaggeration, the House of Commons can now be said to enjoy some extraordinarily luxurious surroundings in Portcullis House. The Commons acquired the two rooms upstairs not long ago and are hanging on to them as though they were glued to them.
	The report says:
	"The Committee learnt that the Commons had refused this request"--
	for the office space to be handed back--
	"and agreed that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip should discuss the matter further with the Leader of the House of Commons".
	That would be a good idea. We suffer from the great disadvantage that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are accustomed to dealing with very nice people in your Lordships' House. That obviously blunts the sharpness that they ought to have when faced with the greedy habits of the House of Commons. When they go on that expedition, I hope that they will summon up their courage, and, if possible, a little ruthlessness, and win the battle against those rather rougher people.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He knows how much I always agree with him, particularly when he is being as uncynical as he was today.
	The Chairman of Committees knows how fond I am of him, but I found his comments and the report somewhat complacent, if I may put it so mildly. Given the shortage of rooms for noble Lords in your Lordships' House, I find the reasons given for the Lord Chancellor needing more rooms incredible. Perhaps members of the committee were overawed, or perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came in his robes. Whatever the truth, I found the reasons given remarkable.
	First, there is talk of the Lord Chancellor's duties as Speaker. I did not know that we had a Speaker in your Lordships' House. I should be delighted if we did. Perhaps we could elect someone in the same way as the other place does. That could make for an interesting election. I have not heard of any specific changes in the role of the Lord Chancellor in your Lordships' House, so I cannot understand why that is one of the reasons for needing more rooms.
	We are also told that the Lord Chancellor's Department is severely overcrowded because it has been given new responsibilities. I am well aware that other jobs have been given to the department, but why do the staff need to be in your Lordships' House? Why cannot they be elsewhere, like the staff of any other department of government? There is no need to use rooms here, when your Lordships are so short of space. I found that an extraordinary reason for giving the Lord Chancellor those extra rooms.
	Then we are told that a "request" has been made to another place for the rooms being used above this Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, the Commons refused. I find it astonishing that we are prepared to give in to that. The Commons have just spent £250 million on Portcullis House--approximately £500,000 per Member using it, together with their staff--while we are being told how marvellous it is that we are going to be given a desk. I find the committee's attitude astonishing. Now we are told that the House of Commons is still refusing our perfectly reasonable request. I hope and trust that the Chairman of Committees will consider withdrawing his part of the resolution. We should not simply make a request to the other place; we should tell it that we shall have those offices. We should make the scandal publicly known that, having spent £250 million on the building opposite, Members of the other place still insist on taking offices in our part of the House. I hope that the committee will consider that matter.
	I am also very concerned about the general attitude towards the offices and rooms that are available to your Lordships. We are told that every Member who wants a desk will be able to have one. How wonderful! I believe that other Parliaments around the world will find astonishing the situation facing a major second Chamber in this Parliament. Whether or not we are paid, we are still a major second House of this Parliament, and we can and do change legislation. I hope that the Chairman of Committees, who knows that I have a great regard for him, will reconsider the committee's proposals.
	I hate to refer to officials but I fear that I must. The Clerk of the Parliaments and possibly even the new Black Rod--a very charming man, who, I hope, is doing a great job--both worry about the Treasury and costs. By comparison with the other place, the cost of your Lordships' House is minuscule. It is time that we stopped worrying about that aspect of the problem. Not only do we need desks; we need offices for Members who want them.
	I know that offices are not available now. However, I hope that the committee will, in the not too distant future, consider the building of a new office block. Such a building need not take a long time to erect, and we need not spend £250 million or anything remotely like that. But we should make that decision. We, not the Treasury, are responsible for our affairs. I say that having had a little experience in the Treasury. I should not have liked it if your Lordships had made such a suggestion to me when I was there, but I am not there now. However, I believe that we should tell the Treasury that we need a new office building located as near as possible to your Lordships' House.
	I suggested to the previous Black Rod that such a building should be situated in his garden. He did not seem too pleased about that idea but I do not believe that it is a bad idea. All kinds of odd structures are located in Black Rod's Garden. We should demolish them and put up a decent office building for your Lordships.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, but I ask noble Lords to be very careful that they do not encourage the usual channels to be diverted into an amazing construction project at some undefined date in the future. We must concentrate on what we need and can get now.
	So far as concerns the Lord Chancellor's situation, I believe that, as so often happens, that particular fox has been shot by the usual channels. At some stage--this relates to a wider issue--noble Lords may feel that they would like to examine how they run their affairs in relation to matters, such as accommodation, that affect Members of the House so directly.
	I have one simple question. When I first entered this building, for example, approximately three Ministers were entitled to accommodation at the taxpayers' expense. That has now become a sign of having arrived and many more Ministers now have accommodation at public expense. These things can become a matter of status and I am anxious to ensure that a precedent is not set in this case. It should be quite simple to say that this is a one-off situation and that it constitutes no precedent.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have, for some time, been one of the people who has tried to establish the right of Members to have accommodation in this building. For years, it has been accepted by the House that we should take over from the staff as many offices as possible. We have been achieving that. I know that the Lord Chancellor has additional duties to perform and that he has taken over many responsibilities and will require more staff. But why should those staff be situated in this building?
	The committee invited the Lord Chancellor to give evidence. Were the 16 Members who were decapitated and removed from their offices given the opportunity to state why they should remain in those offices, or were they told simply that they would be evicted? I am told that they were given notice long before the committee passed this resolution. I should like to know the answer to that.
	I turn to the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Barnett concerning the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. If my noble friend were to read the Standing Orders, he would find that the Lord Chancellor's title is "Lord Chancellor and Speaker".

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare a direct and personal interest as the occupant of one of the desks which is being repossessed by the Lord Chancellor. In following the new theme and philosophy of registration of interests, if I were to say presumptuously that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a friend of mine, I believe that I should also declare his interest as the tenant--I am not sure for how long--of a major part of valuable Westminster property. I do not know the exact quantity, and I am not sure whether that would be required under the declaration of friends' interests. But I do not believe that replacing Peers with departmental officials gives the right message.
	However, I am more concerned about another matter. I wonder whether your Lordships realise that a number of servants of this House--in particular, staff in the Committee and Computer Offices--are being moved out of the Palace of Westminster, where they will be less effective at helping us and, as a result, the service that we receive will be less good? Although it is nice to hear from the Chairman of Committees that extra desks are to be provided, I return to the fact that I do not consider such a move to be appropriate.
	I am not aware that a proper case has been made for the accommodation arrangements for the Lord Chancellor's Department. That department has apparently doubled in size, or, rather, it appears that 13 more spaces are required for it. I understand that that is slightly larger than the present size of the Lord Chancellor's departmental office. However, I do not believe that the case for that has been made.
	I am not complaining about the moves because, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, we are being given alternative accommodation and it is possible that the cookie may crumble quite well from my point of view. I know that the moves will not take place until the beginning of the next Session and, obviously, after seven years, one would not be given the type of time-scale which at one time was being suggested by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	However, I seriously wonder whether it would not be more appropriate to wait before making a decision on this part of the report until we receive the results of the fresh approach to be made by the Leader of the House and, I believe, the Government Chief Whip to another place in respect of the handing over of accommodation. I understand from some members of the committee that they believed that that decision was made at the meeting. On the other hand, the report reads as though the surrender of the rooms to the Lord Chancellor's Department is totally separate from, and not consequent upon, the fresh approach.

Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps at this point I may intervene to explain how the usual channels have operated since the meeting of the Offices Committee took place. On the assumption, and the hope, that the report will be accepted, we have allocated the rooms between the parties with the agreement of all parties and the Cross Benches. It is hoped that a number of Peers, including the noble Lord, already know the rooms to which they will go in the autumn. We are supposed to inform Black Rod by tomorrow evening of the allocation of rooms and, it is hoped, of the allocation of the majority of desks. If that were to be held over, it would create chaos in the autumn.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I have been referred to as one of those who have been, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, decapitated. I have a desk in room S/O2, and I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that so far I have received no intimation whatever of where I shall be moved to; I do not know whether I shall remain within the Palace or not. I have said that I should rather stay within the Palace but, although tomorrow is the end of term, I have received no intimation of where I am supposed to go.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and others, raised a most important point in the debate--it is far more important than finding out where my desk will be next year. It involves the growth of a department within the House of Lords and it is about whether it is right in principle for Peers to be thrown out so that civil servants may take over. That is what this is all about. The Select Committee report refers to, "a small private office", and to,
	"a small number of new staff".
	Dare one say, "What weasel words!"? What numbers are involved? There are 13 of us in the two rooms that are being taken over; there are six in my room, and we have a desk each. Four of us are Privy Counsellors--and fairly senior Privy Counsellors, at that. We are, to put it crudely, being thrown out. I told my Chief Whip that I did not want to go but, with respect, that made no difference whatever.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, touched on a root problem. To what extent should civil servants, whether they work for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or not, be permitted to take over space in the Palace of Westminster rather than in departments outside in Whitehall? That goes to the heart of the matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the idea that we could say, "This is not a precedent", is, with respect, bunkum. We all know that in years to come today's decision will be referred to as a precedent. Other Ministers who want to be in Westminster will do so.
	I turn to another important point. I do not know whether the Government's reform of the upper House is intended to make us--how should one put this?--a more serious upper Chamber. If we are to become slightly more weighty and if more attention is paid to our decisions, it is wrong that we should have to fight for a desk and for somewhere to put our umbrella and briefcase. It is lovely at last to be given post-paid and pre-paid envelopes but there are other things in life, which go with being an important, serious upper Chamber. That should also be weighed in the balance when trying to reach a decision.
	Finally, I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who told me last week--no one else told me this--that the entire Computer Office is being moved out of the House. I have found that department to be an extreme help.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I am a neophyte in my attempts to master Windows 98, the Citrix system and so on. It has been very useful indeed to be able to go with one's laptop and printer to the rooms on the second floor and be told what one is doing wrong or why one's laptop has broken down. In the four years that I have been in this House I found that office to be one of the most helpful in the House of Lords. The idea that that office will be booted out and that I shall have to traipse up and down Whitehall with my laptop trying to find someone who can tell me why I have, once again, mucked up my system because I pressed the wrong button, is unattractive. I hope that that matter will also be reviewed.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there are just three matters to which I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords. They are all matters that I raised with the House of Lords' Offices Committee last week.
	My first point relates to the questionnaire to which the Chairman of Committees referred. I am very happy that that questionnaire was sent out and that the authorities found it useful. It was sent out against a great deal of resistance. I draw to the attention of noble Lords the fact that it does not coincide with the terms of the Motion that appeared before your Lordships' House on 29th March of this year. The Motion that led to the sending out of the questionnaire had two parts: one part dealt with the division of the premises of the Palace of Westminster, which was not, for reasons that I understand, accepted; the other part dealt with accommodation, and it was accepted.
	That second part of the Motion itself had three parts: one involved establishing whether Members wanted accommodation on their own; the second was about whether they wanted shared accommodation; and the third was about whether or not they wanted accommodation for secretaries or researchers. Strangely enough, the final requirement, which is about whether Members wanted space for secretaries or researchers, disappeared from the questionnaire--it does not appear there. That is not a frivolous matter. I have a pretty good idea why it disappeared, but I shall not go into that today. I also have a pretty good idea about the arguments that were involved, and I do not intend to go into them, either.
	I shall explain to noble Lords why this is not a frivolous matter. Many Members who come here also have to make a living, and they need a secretary or researcher to do so. If the secretary or researcher were miles away, that would reduce their enthusiasm for attendance at this place. That is one of the reasons why there is not a full take-up of offices here--Members find that they cannot come here because they cannot do their outside work properly. That question will become even more acute when we have 100 or 120 elected Members in this place. They are all going to have constituencies to serve. We have simply got to think ahead about this House's requirements; if we do not, we shall be in the most appalling mess when 100 or 120 elected Members arrive here. In this regard I very much hope that in the immediate future I shall have the support of the Opposition Front Benches of both parties--Front-Benchers, of all people, need secretaries and researchers to do their work and to ensure that the House operates efficiently. I give notice that I propose to return after the Summer Recess to the provision of space for secretaries or researchers.
	I turn to my second point. A report, which is not in the Offices Committee report, was prepared for this House by a small group--I believe that that is the right word. My noble friend Lord Grenfell played a distinguished part and the noble Lords, Lord Newton, Lord Levene and Lord Oakeshott, were also part of the group. They produced a report that, if I am correctly informed, was completed before Christmas and which was given to the Clerk of the Parliaments. If I am again correctly informed, he gave the report to the newly elected late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was then the Chairman of Committees. That report has yet to see the light of day. Frankly, that is a scandal. There is no earthly reason why it should not be published or why noble Lords should not know what is in it. Whether noble Lords agree with what is in it or not is beside the point. That report should be the property of the House. Before this debate ends I hope that we can have an assurance from the Chairman of Committees that the report will be published before the Recess. I happen to know that in saying that I have the support of the leaders of all the political groups here and of the Convenor.
	I have not seen a copy of the report but I have some idea about one or two items that appear in it. One of those items relates to the structure of the Offices Committee. The structure of that committee is a complete nonsense. I raise that point because it is relevant to the next matter that I want to discuss.
	According to a list that I obtained today from the Library, the Offices Committee has 28 members. Seven of those members sit on the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and eight sit on the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. A great deal of the authority of the Offices Committee was delegated many years ago to those sub-committees. Altogether, 11 members of the Offices Committee sit on those two sub-committees--there is a certain amount of overlap between the two sub-committees. It does not take a great deal of arithmetical knowledge to figure out that no fewer than 17 of the 28 members of the Offices Committee sit on neither sub-committee.
	Why is that important? A report from the Chairman of Committees on behalf of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee was sent to the Offices Committee on Tuesday of last week. This is the report. It can be obtained from the Library. The sub-committee met on 3rd July. There is reference in the report to accommodation and to the many letters and documents which came before the Offices Committee. The report goes on:
	"Proposal to present a casket of sand from the Normandy beaches".
	That required four paragraphs and was, no doubt, a wholly appropriate decision for the Administration and Works Sub-Committee to take.
	I thought that was very strange so I did a little digging. I went back to the previous meeting of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. Lo and behold, I found that there is a great deal in there which is not included in this report to the Offices Committee.
	No doubt the rest of your Lordships know what I am now about to say. However, I did not know that we have in this House a 10-year rolling programme of capital works, involving tens of millions of pounds; we have a three-year rolling programme of maintenance works, also involving a great deal of money. Neither of those reports has ever been in front of the Offices Committee, never since the rolling programme was set up 10 years ago. So already every item on the original 10-year programme will be history and all the items now will be new, as against when the programme was started.
	The only people that see that are the administration committee, of whom eight, of a total of 28, are members of the Offices Committee. That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Those matters are not secret. Your Lordships can find them out but one has to do quite a lot of digging to know that that is going on.
	What is more, every item on the 10-year major works rolling programme, which, as I said, involves tens of millions of pounds, has a priority assigned to it--4, 3, 2 or 1 in descending order of importance. I inquired as to who had allocated those numbers. It is a wholly admirable combination of the Clerk of Works and the Black Rod of the day. Those matters are rubber-stamped. I should not say that because "rubber-stamped" is a pejorative term which I should not use in this House. The matters are agreed by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.
	I mention all that to your Lordships because, as I understand it, the report of the group of which my noble friend Lord Grenfell was a member, as were the other three distinguished Members of this House, includes proposals for the committee arrangements of the Offices Committee and its sub-committees. I believe that your Lordships' House should be seized of that matter. Noble Lords should know about that major works programme and, indeed, the minor works programme. It should be the subject of a debate in this House in the fullness of time.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I make a few comments both as a member of the committee which produced this report but perhaps more importantly, as someone who has now been in the House for nearly 40 years and as someone who has a great deal of concern, as I think most of your Lordships have, for the authority and prestige of the House.
	My comments concern a point which has been mentioned already by the noble Lords, Lord Barnet and Lord Peyton; namely, the resolution of disputes between this House and the other place.
	The background to the question of accommodation in the Upper Committee Corridor bears a few minutes, attention. It starts in March of this year when the three Leaders of the main parties in this House, plus the Convenor of the Cross-Benches, wrote to the Leader of the House of Commons asking for those offices to be handed over, and giving reasons for doing so. As we already know, the result was a refusal. It was not just a refusal but a fairly blank refusal. It came first from the Leader of the House of Commons and then from one of the committees of the House of Commons which said that there can be no question of the House of Commons handing over any accommodation from the House of Commons to the House of Lords.
	It seems to me--and I have asked questions about this in the Offices Committee--that that is an end of the matter. If the House of Commons says "No", "No" is the answer. There is no one who can arbitrate or adjudicate on this decision as between the two Houses.
	That is totally unacceptable. We need to have some machinery for resolving such disputes. Noble Lords will see from the report of the Offices Committee that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip have been asked to go to see the Leader of the House of Commons to discuss that matter.
	It seems to me that they should go with some very, very strong guidance indeed from your Lordships' House. The request is that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be established to adjudicate or arbitrate on such matters. This House should make it quite clear to the two noble Lords who will be representing us at that meeting with the Leader of the House of Commons that there is extremely strong feeling in the House about a number of matters, including accommodation.
	But this is not just a matter of accommodation. As has already been said, it is a matter of the prestige and authority of this House. We need the House of Commons to be clear that the very least we can accept is some kind of Joint Committee of both Houses to arbitrate and adjudicate. That is the very least we can accept. I find myself in full agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Barnet, that we must be rather tougher about those issues and not go cap in hand to the House of Commons. We are, or should be, equal partners in the occupation of the Palace of Westminster and the House of Commons must realise that.
	The setting up of a Joint Committee of some kind has a precedent of a sort. In 1864, a committee was set up to deal with the question of the ventilation of the House because there was a dispute which could not be settled. As a result of that committee then, it was decided that the ventilation of the House of Commons should be dealt with by Mr Reid, who was the adviser to Barry, and that the ventilation of the House of Lords should be left in the hands of Barry.
	The result of that can be judged later in 1865 when the Hansard of the day reported the fact that by four or six o'clock in the afternoon, most of the Members of the House of Commons were suffering from near asphyxia. Therefore, that was not a particularly good outcome. However, I make the point because I believe that although Members of the House of Commons can no longer be threatened by asphyxia, they will be sending to this House a large amount of legislation from the House of Commons over the coming months. We should make it clear that that legislation has a much better chance of passing smoothly through this House if the House is regarded as an equal partner and not as some kind of underprivileged neighbour. In spite of everything, this House still has some weight and we should start throwing it about a little.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, much of what I wanted to ask has already been asked so I can be extremely brief. However, I am anxious to have clarification on the question of the postal arrangements for Peers.
	The House finishes for the Summer Recess tomorrow. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said--it is in the report--that it will not be possible to avail ourselves of the envelopes until October if we live outside London and cannot reach the House to ask for them. As the case for such free envelopes has been well made and as many noble Lords will have official mail to deal with during the Recess, would it be possible for Peers to pick up some envelopes by special arrangement or could they be sent to Peers through the post?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on the Select Committee's judgment to accept the request of the Lord Chancellor to expand his private office as part of the discharge of the new responsibilities given to him, I welcome the fact that he has been given those responsibilities as they will make his department a more comprehensive ministry of justice, and about time too. However, the price of expansion is the obvious reduction in accommodation for the rest of us, which leads me to wonder whether the Chairman of Committees could have a word with the Lord Chancellor and other colleagues: the senior Law Lords and other noble and learned Lords, one of whom I see sitting opposite, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I am intimidated merely to see him, in the light of what I am about to say.
	The facilities that the Law Lords have in their corridor and the facilities offered to the public in the committee rooms, are, as the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, wrote the other day, "seriously inadequate". We have a split supreme court, half of which sits in Downing Street and the other half here. The public have extremely poor facilities. It has taken me three years to achieve agreement to hearing amplification so that the public can hear what is going on and I am told that that will happen shortly. No photocopying facilities are readily available and litigants and their lawyers cannot get a cup of coffee quickly. Sometimes, as an advocate, one can be asked by the Lords of Appeal whether a document can be photocopied. I can achieve that because I am a Peer by going go to the Library, but if I were an ordinary barrister or solicitor I would be in great trouble. The Law Lords are unable to have a sufficient number of judicial assistants working with them, as they would in any other Commonwealth or European country, simply because of the cramped conditions here.
	I say all that because our accommodation problems would be helped and a more modern and more efficient system would be created, if, at last, the Law Lords were able to have a separate, elegant, well-designed building. In my view it would preferably be an old building that has been done up, but a building worthy of that function. We could then relieve ourselves of some of these problems and enhance the administration of justice. I hope that those kind of remarks will be borne in mind.

Lord Peston: My Lords, having regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I do not have any friends and therefore I have no interests of that kind to declare. As I do not propose to make any new friends I hope that this declaration will count for as long as I am a Member of your Lordships' House! I always drift into the corridor because I need the space, which is the topic before us.
	I want to ensure that we understand the procedural position. Before us we have a Motion that this report be agreed to. Some time ago, in a rather acrimonious debate of this kind, I raised this matter and I was able to establish that your Lordships do not have to agree to the report. In considering the matter I hope that your Lordships are aware that, first, you do not have to consider the report and, secondly, you are allowed to amend it. That is my understanding.
	One of the difficulties is that ordinary Back-Benchers lack leadership. I am assuming that sides are not involved in an issue of this sort. This debate has not involved sides but we have established, as always whenever we discuss the subject, that the one group of people who count for nothing in this House--which I discovered when I first came to the House many years ago--are your Lordships. The noble Lords who sit on the Back Benches are at the bottom of any priority list when it comes to anything at all. That has been made clear from listening to the remarks that have been made.
	My judgment is that the Chairman of Committees would be well advised to take the whole matter away. Not one noble Lord has said, "The Lord Chancellor needs more room so we must give space up so that he can have it". We have refrained from other possible discussions about what happens to various bits of space, but if the House were willing to waste several more hours we could go into that as well.
	Beside the matter of franked envelopes, which we can live without for a short time, I simply ask the Chairman of Committees to take this matter away for further consideration. I cannot see any cost involved in that. If he took the matter away he would save us the embarrassment of perhaps having to force him to take it away.

Lord Wigoder: My Lords, can the Chairman of Committees remind the House how long the dispute with the other place in relation to the Pugin Room has been going on and what is the present position?

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have a locker with which I am very happy, so I have no interest in any rooms anywhere. However, I strongly suggest that noble Lords, who are required to be present for Divisions among other things, should have first priority in relation to who stays in this House. If anyone is to be moved anywhere, it should be the incoming civil servants. If anyone who is not a noble Lord is to be moved anywhere, I hope that it will not be the computer section or those who support our invaluable committees. I hope that that simple principle can be observed; that we come first when it comes to staying in this House.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I ask the Chairman of Committees to read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said. A long time ago I was on the Works Committee and most of the matters that he made were observed by me. I made one or two suggestions and soon found that I was no longer on the Works Committee--I have no aspirations to return to it. The noble Lord made some important points about the way in which the House decides on matters of works. It is extremely important that we all know what is happening and that some of us take a proper part in making those decisions.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of this side of the House. As the House knows, there is a variety of different views on this subject. I have been a member of the Offices Committee for a number of years and, yet again, I am happy to support the recommendations laid out in this report.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made an excellent intervention and I agree with everything that he said, except when he pointed the finger of suspicion towards the Clerk of the Parliaments and Black Rod. My view is that they play no part in this matter at all. They are no more in thrall to the Treasury than he is. Of course, both of them carry out the instructions as laid out by the House and by the committees of the House, which is as it should be.
	For a number of months the Lord Chancellor, with me and others, has discussed increasing the amount of space available to him. He made a powerful case to me, and to the committee, which was accepted. It was accepted because two things were to happen. First, the displaced Peers--the fact that they were Conservatives was incidental--would be given at least as good accommodation as they had before, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Marlesford believes that that is the case. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a net increase would be made to available space throughout the House of Lords' part of the Palace of Westminster and more desks would be available than currently. On that basis I agreed to the plans of the Lord Chancellor and I urged the committee to do likewise. It should be remembered that not only will the Lord Chancellor have more space, but the Law Lords, the political parties and the Cross-Benchers will have a small increase in available space.
	This discussion on accommodation hides a greater truth: space in the parliamentary estate is at a premium. There is not enough space and, for a number of years, we have had to put up with Members of another place having offices literally above our heads. That was why, at the end of the last Session, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lords Rodgers, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and I wrote to Margaret Beckett, the then Leader of the House of Commons, asking whether we could have that space returned to us. That request was rejected. To add insult to injury, not only was it rejected but the House of Commons said that they proposed to reduce the number of spaces from approximately 40 to 20 by doubling the space available to MPs on that Upper Committee Corridor South which resides in the House of Lords' part of the Palace.
	I recognise the considerable anger from all sides of the House on this matter. The committee has resolved that I, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the Liberal Democrats should urge the House of Commons to rethink their rejection of our initial request. I believe that that is the right way forward; and if the request is again rejected, we should consider other means of ensuring that we ultimately get our way. In view of the amount of money that has been spent by the House of Commons authorities on Portcullis House--an excellent project--I believe that a space at the House of Lords end of the Palace should now be made available to Peers.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the proposals tabled by the Select Committee on House of Lords' Offices. Though not perfect, they represent an improvement and should therefore be supported.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful for the two previous interventions. I think I spoke for one minute, and 51 minutes are now shown on the clock. I understand the feelings of the House but I am glad that, for once, the Chairman of Committees has not been totally hung out to dry, as used to happen when other members of the Offices Committee did not come to his aid.
	I shall deal with some of the points that have been made. The major one, of course, concerns the Lord Chancellor's occupation of extra room. The whole of the Lord Chancellor's argument was based on the fact that he is the Speaker of this House. I note from the Companion that it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor ordinarily to attend the Lords House of Parliament as Speaker. Because he has to be here every day, he needs to have his private office nearby. I hasten to say that not the whole of the Lord Chancellor's Department will be moving here. At least that is what he told the Offices Committee and what the committee accepted. At present his private office is extremely cramped, in conditions that probably fall outside the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which, although they do not technically apply here, we try to enforce. That was the basis on which the Offices Committee accepted the argument, combined with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that people being dispossessed would be found accommodation that was at least as good; and I believe it is better.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has not yet been told where he is to go, I suggest that he has a word with his Chief Whip. It was left to the Chief Whips to sort out the disposition of these offices, and I understand that they have done so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, accused us of complacency. I hope we have not been complacent. This matter was taken very seriously by the Offices Committee and was the subject of lengthy argument. The accommodation group, consisting mainly of Chief Whips and a couple of other people, also considered it in some detail. The truth is that we are dealing with an antiquated building which is not fit for the uses to which it needs to be put in the 21st century. I have some sympathy with those who say that we should have new buildings outside. Indeed, we are in the process of trying to bid for a block within the area of the Palace of Westminster, which, if obtained, would ease the problem even further. However, the results of the survey suggest that not many people want to move even across the road, let alone round the corner. Although I understand that, the fact is that we cannot in this building do all the things that we would like to do.
	The question of the Computer Office and the Committee Office, which I, as Chairman of the European Union Select Committee, resisted, but which nevertheless was agreed by the Offices Committee at that time, was part of an earlier decision put to the House last year. That was done on the basis that the usual channels felt that such space as could be made available here should be made available to Peers and that the committee structure should be moved across the road.
	The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that accommodation should not be made available at public expense for more and more Ministers. It is quite clear that the Offices Committee very much regarded this as a one off. I know that no Offices Committee can bind its successors, but it was made very plain that this provision could not possibly extend to other departments of state, because they are not in the position of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of this House.
	The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that we should wait for the results of the meeting of the Leaders and Chief Whips. That has probably been answered. Decisions having been made and rooms having been allocated, to stop the process now would leave us in chaos when we return in the autumn. Let us proceed with people in their new offices and accommodation and consider on our return how we have progressed.
	I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. It is quite right that the questionnaire did not have a question about secretarial staff. That was because we felt that it would better to organise the office accommodation for Peers before we moved on to the question of secretarial staff. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will argue that if you do not know what people want, you cannot begin to work at it. However, I understood him also to say that people working in various parts of London need secretarial staff not only to carry out their parliamentary duties but also their business activities. The authorities in this place could not possibly allow taxpayers' money to be used for the provision of secretarial space for people operating in anything other than a parliamentary sense.
	The noble Lord referred to the report of the four wise men. The noble Lord's chronology is not quite right. The report was produced at the start of the New Year, not before Christmas. It was shown to the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish shortly before he died. In the interregnum between his death and my taking over as Chairman of Committees, it was passed through the usual channels. I had hoped to get together with them to see how it could be progressed. I have not yet been successful. We hoped to have a meeting this week, but it has been necessary to postpone it until the first week after the Recess. I want to take that process forward, because that report still contains some unanswered questions.
	I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said about the awful state of the Offices Committee. It simply does not work and the mechanics cannot possibly work. That is one of the matters we need to consider. I hope to be able to continue this work, but there is no reason as far as I am concerned--I do not hold the report, it is not my property--why it should not be made available to Members of the House. I understand from the Leader of the House that he has absolutely no objection to it being made public. We will therefore circulate it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to ask a simple question. After all that has been said this afternoon, is the noble Lord moving in the direction of suggesting that we should accept the report as it stands? I would be very much against that.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have no other alternative than to do that, because many proposals are in train that need to be put into effect, such as the provision of offices, the provision of stamped envelopes and perhaps the sand going to the Royal Gallery. I do not believe that by rejecting the report we shall take ourselves further forward between now and the autumn. Members who are expecting to move into new offices will find themselves in considerable difficulties and I hope that the House will accept the report.
	We in this House have a problem in that we delegate issues to a variety of committees, imperfect as they are. Our first task should be to improve those committees in order to ensure that they are more responsive and managerially efficient. Until we reach that stage, we must allow for the fact that a number of Members from all sides of the House will have taken part in discussions on these issues and for the House constantly to refer them back is no way to make efficient progress. However, I understand why people become cross about such matters.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, suggested that we should find another mechanism in the interregnum. Frankly, I do not believe that that is possible. It is only two months and we have to start at some time. We have been working for many years without the facility of franked envelopes but I am sure that when it is in place it will be well used. It is easy for people who live in London to pop into the House in order to post letters here and it may be more difficult for those who live outside. But nothing has changed. The daily allowance has been improved so there ought to be a little money available for buying stamps during the Recess. At the end of the Recess, the facility will be up and running.
	We have received a request from the Law Lords for rooms 23, 24 and 25. The Offices Committee agreed that only room 24, which is at present occupied by staff, should be handed over to them. The question of whether we should have a supreme court and whether it should be in a separate building is not a matter for me--I believe that it would call for an Act of Parliament--but it is interesting that the noble and learned Lords in the Appellate Court are beginning to consider such issues. I welcome that but believe that a decision is some way down the track.
	I have not seen the 1864 report on ventilation. I am sure that it is filed away somewhere and I have no doubt that if Members want me to circulate it, ways can be found of doing so.
	The Pugin Room was handed over to the House of Commons in 1906 and we have been struggling to get it back ever since. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is taking steps to find additional refreshment accommodation. Many of us have always believed that the Pugin Room should be a joint room so that we can allow Members of another place to buy drinks for us!
	I hope that I have covered most of the points but if I have not no doubt someone will tell me.

Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a factual question. During the past hour, has he heard a single speech in favour of the report? I heard many noble Lords speak against it and I heard their arguments undermined by the two Opposition Front Benches. I find it strange, to put it mildly, that in these circumstances, and following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, he would still want to proceed.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am slightly surprised that the other 18 or 20 members of the Offices Committee have not come to my aid. That is what we have come to expect.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the Chief Whip did.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Chief Whip did, yes, to his great credit. I have tried to explain why it is necessary to press on with the proposed changes. Without them, come the autumn Members will not know where they are living.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as a member of the Offices Committee I had intended to remain silent but the noble Lord has tempted me. As he knows, my view on the matter did not carry the day in the committee, nor was it minuted.
	The committee was up against a brick wall because of the administrative impossibility of settling your Lordships into new accommodation after the Recess if we did not pass the report. Your Lordships will have great satisfaction in throwing it out and we will have flexed our muscles and may believe that we are doing as well as the people at the other end of the corridor. I see some Members nodding. But ultimately we Back-Benchers will suffer. I am crammed into a room in a distant tower with five others and I can only just manage to get down to the Chamber for Divisions.
	I shall vote for the report with a heavy heart. My view was that if we took another step we would have achieved a better objective, but that was rejected by the committee. As a loyal member of the committee, I shall support its decision because I believe that your Lordships will be better off when we return after the Recess.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I found the answer given by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, totally unsatisfactory. If we throw out the report, or paragraph 2 of it, the offices which are available will remain available.
	The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Lord Chancellor has always been a Speaker of your Lordships' House has always been true, but previous Speakers-cum-Lord Chancellors have not required the additional space. That is the difference.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I correct him. They have used these rooms and more in the past. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, handed over not only these rooms but also a large number of others. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that Lord Chancellors did not use them in the past.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord has confirmed my view; I always thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was a very decent fellow. I asked the former Black Rod how and why the rooms upstairs had been given over to the other place some 50 or 60 years ago. It was not that there was legislation or even a resolution of your Lordships' House but some deal was done between the Leader of your Lordships' House and the Leader of other place. Anthony Eden, or whoever, did a deal. I find that as unsatisfactory as everything else.
	We in your Lordships' House must understand that this is a matter for us and not for the usual channels. We are Members of your Lordships' House and we can decide. And we should decide that what is being proposed is totally unsatisfactory. It is not a matter of a one-off situation; that we can let them have the space and it will later be returned to us. It is more serious than that.
	I have noted the frequency--or rather lack of frequency--with which the Offices Committee meets. My noble friend Lord Grenfell was a distinguished member of the steering group and is a wise man. It reported many months ago--possibly nine--and the former Chairman of Committees promised noble Lords that they would have a report speedily. Here we are almost 12 months later and we still do not have it. We are now being told that it has to be published. I am grateful for that as I am sure is my noble friend Lord Gilbert.
	I believe that we need to show the other place the strength of our feelings on a matter of this kind. If the Chairman of Committees is not prepared to accept the argument, I propose a manuscript amendment: that the report be accepted with the exception of paragraph 2. That will allow your Lordships to benefit from the free post, which I am sure is important, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that paragraph 2 relating to accommodation is not acceptable. In my view, it should not be and I hope that it will not be. I beg to move.

Moved, That the amendment be agreed to.--(Lord Barnett.)

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, for the time being I am happy to support the report. I did not speak earlier because I believed that for Members of this House to hold a 50-minute debate on their own facilities--noble Lords have now been considering this matter for one hour and eight minutes--was a little self-indulgent. There are perhaps more weighty items on the Order Paper today. Nevertheless, since noble Lords appear to be rather self-indulgent perhaps I should join them.
	I am a member of the Offices Committee, although I do not serve on any of its sub-committees. There is a great deal of mystique about this matter, and when we hear the report of the wise men and all the information is produced noble Lords will know a good deal more. Many changes can be made. However, I believe that as far as concerns paragraph 2, a reasonable case has been made out, particularly as several more offices are available within walking distance of this House. Many noble Lords are fit enough to cross a road to reach commodious offices and decent facilities. I believe that, in the round, that is worth achieving. But the important part of the second paragraph is the final sentence which refers to the refusal of the request and agreement,
	"that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip should discuss the matter further with the Leader of the House of Commons".
	For me, the revelation at the Offices Committee is the absence of procedure of any description to resolve a dispute between the two Houses. If, as a result of the report and this debate, a way is found to have proper, reasonable discussions for the resolution of disputes something will have been achieved. I hope that we stick to the second paragraph, in particular the final sentence which indicates that at last there is some hope of finding a way to resolve disputes between the two Houses.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I believe that the time has come for us to reach a conclusion after one hour and 11 minutes. For some of the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, I hope that noble Lords will resist the amendment. We need to pass the resolution to get the offices sorted out by the end of this year. The Lord Chancellor made his position quite clear to the Offices Committee. The committee accepted, perhaps with some reluctance, the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that noble Lords will accept the report of the Offices Committee which, after all, is a delegated body of this House.

On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 143.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration Policy: EUC Report

Baroness Harris of Richmond: rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on A Community Immigration Policy (13th Report, Session 2000-2001, HL Paper 64).

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, the report was intended to provoke discussion and debate rather than to map out a clear direction for community immigration policy. Throughout the report we were at pains to keep separate the closely-related and often confused issues of migration and asylum. We looked principally at economic migration. A separate report deals with asylum matters and will be debated shortly.
	The introduction to the report states:
	"The issues in this Report are formidably complex".
	To help us through the difficulties we are indebted to our clerk, Dr Christopher Johnson and to our legal assistant, Leigh Gibson, whose help, patience and advice was invaluable. We are also extremely grateful to the many responses to our calls for evidence--rather too many to mention here today--a list of which is to be found at appendix 3 on page 44 of our report.
	I note with pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is to make his maiden speech today. We all look forward greatly to his contribution to the debate.
	The EU member states gave a clear indication at Amsterdam that they saw the development of a Community immigration policy as desirable, within a clearly defined timetable of five years from the treaty's entry into force; that is, Title IV of the EC treaty.
	At the Tampere special European Council in October 1999 the heads of government gave clear instructions to the Commission to bring forward proposals quickly and acknowledged:
	"The need for approximation of national legislations on the conditions for admission and residence of third country nationals based on a shared assessment of the economic and demographic developments within the Union".
	So the heads of government at Tampere were agreed on a political commitment for a fresh look at immigration policy. That included the United Kingdom Government. They did so because there was a general agreement that the countries of Western Europe needed to look again at primary immigration for economic purposes. On behalf of our Government, the former Minister Barbara Roche, speaking on 11th September 2000 to the Institute of Public Policy Research, said:
	"As with other aspects of globalisation, there are potentially huge economic benefits for Britain if it is able to adapt to the new environment. We are in competition for the brightest and best talents, the entrepreneurs, the scientists, the high-technology specialists who make the global economy tick".
	In order to seize the opportunities of the knowledge economy and to play a constructive part in shaping these huge changes, we need to explore carefully the implications for immigration policy. More recently, on 5th July this year Anatole Kaletsky writing in The Times described the growing tolerance and liberalism on immigration as,
	"one of the most encouraging . . . developments of the past year".
	Yesterday, 22nd July, in the Independent on Sunday, Hamish McRae wrote,
	"In every country unemployment among the foreign-born is higher than among the native-born. But this gap varies widely . . . Part of the difference might be explained by educational levels . . . there also seem to be cultural barriers to foreign-born workers that are quite difficult to pin down. Does this mean that migration is a burden rather than a blessing for the host country? Not at all. It does not increase unemployment and may reduce it-- because it helps create a more flexible labour market. And it can to some extent offset the effects of ageing populations. So provided countries feel comfortable about trying to attract the most skilled people from elsewhere (some might accuse them of poaching) we really ought to welcome most migration, at least on economic grounds".
	As the report makes clear, despite the so-called "zero-immigration policy" which has been in place since around 1970, the Committee noted that immigration into and emigration out of the European Union has continued at a high level. In free and prosperous societies this movement is inevitable and, I believe, desirable. Some 100 million people a year pass through the United Kingdom ports of entry alone. Between 200,000 to 300,000 people either come from abroad to settle in or emigrate from the UK each year. Globalisation can only increase these pressures.
	It is worth mentioning that the Government's response to our report found that,
	"overall, migrants had a net positive impact on the UK in 1999 of around £2.5 billion. This reflects the contribution of all migrants, including those who came through family reunion routes and as refugees as well as those who came through 'economic routes'".
	We know that the European Union is facing specific problems of labour shortages in both high and low skilled sectors of the labour market. We were pleased to hear from the former Minister, Barbara Roche, that the UK already has an innovative scheme which gives entrepreneurs rapid access to residence permits. When we looked, somewhat sketchily because of time constraints, at how other countries were managing these problems, we found that Germany, in order to attract thousands of much needed IT specialists, had been trying to recruit in India. There appears to be a world shortage of those particular skills and governments do not always hold a good record of predicting or meeting labour market needs.
	Immigration has a vital part to play in overcoming labour shortages. When we came to look at the needs of the business community, we felt that,
	"immigration policy should be framed so as to allow businesses to meet their legitimate recruitment needs quickly and efficiently".
	But we also felt that,
	"The preparation of regular national reports, which will then be synthesised into further reports, is too cumbersome to keep pace with the speed of developments within the labour market".
	I shall return to that point later in my remarks.
	The EU also faces a long-term demographic problem as regards falling birth-rates and an ageing population. Immigration may well have a role to play in some member states by helping to cushion them from the worst effects of demographic change. The committee also concluded, despite confusing signals from the Government, that by facilitating legal immigration there was at least a possibility that some of the ground could be cut from under the feet of the smugglers and traffickers. That seems to have been the Canadian experience and merits further study. Furthermore, I stress that the committee agreed these conclusions unanimously and without any difficulty.
	However, despite the broad consensus in the committee on a range of issues, disagreements were expressed on two crucial points. Two amendments were moved. The first concerned the role of the Community in immigration policy. A clear majority of the sub-committee agreed that Community involvement was welcome. In so doing, members were consistent with the past work of the committee on the subject. I refer noble Lords to the reports on Community Policy on Migration in 1992 and Enlargement and EU External Frontier Controls, agreed last October when we concluded that,
	"at some point the EU will have to confront its own need for migrant labour, and formulate a coherent immigration policy".
	There were no dissenting voices to those conclusions at the time. Furthermore, the unanimous will of the member states to move towards a Community immigration policy cannot be doubted.
	As paragraph 87 of the report makes clear, the logic of the internal market means that at some point the Community will have to develop an immigration policy. The Community has already made significant progress towards developing common policies in a number of these areas. The proposal for a common visa list has been agreed. The development of a common policy on asylum and on temporary protection continues.
	Several measures have been proposed to combat illegal immigration, including an agreement into which the UK has opted, on the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions. We simply cannot ignore these developments; nor should the Community merely focus on controlling immigration, ignoring the more positive measures aimed at improving the rights of third country nationals or facilitating legal immigration. The majority of the sub-committee believes that the time has come for the Community to adopt a more balanced approach to immigration issues.
	I must emphasise that what the Commission proposes in its communications is no more than a framework. It makes no claim to dictate the admission policies of any member state. Indeed, the Commission suggests that member states should share information on labour market needs and prepare reports setting indicative targets for immigration to meet those needs. At the same time, the Council, acting on proposals from the Commission, would agree measures specifying common standards on the granting of admission and residence, and establishing a uniform set of minimum rights to be enjoyed by legally resident third country nationals.
	The sub-committee broadly welcomes the Commission's outline, in particular the fact that no attempt will be made to dictate admissions policy or to set quotas. However, we felt that the reporting system proposed by the Commission, as I mentioned earlier, was unnecessarily cumbersome. If labour shortages are to be overcome, an efficient method must be found to enable businesses, once they have shown that they cannot fill a vacancy from within the EU, to recruit rapidly from overseas. The Community could play a useful role in publicising vacancies, providing information for potential immigrants and providing flexible visa arrangements. In particular, as was agreed at Tampere, it is vital that third country nationals should be granted rights
	"as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens".
	This is wholly in keeping with the commitment of the EU to creating an area of "freedom, security and justice". We also felt that the inconsistencies between the rights of third country nationals across the member states seriously undermine the single market and any attempt by businesses to overcome labour shortages by recruiting from abroad. We concluded that legally resident third country nationals should have "consistent, enforceable, Community-level rights".
	The second area of disagreement within the sub-committee concerned the position of the United Kingdom opt-out. The Government's protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty allows them to choose whether to opt into measures brought forward under Title IV of the EC treaty. It appears that the Government contemplate using this protocol to opt into policing measures designed to combat illegal immigration, but do not envisage opting into more positive measures that might have an impact on the admissions policy of the UK or border controls. In agreeing to the directive on the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions, the Government overrode the scrutiny reserved for both Houses. Thus we believe that this rather lop-sided participation in EU immigration policy is, at the least, unfortunate and risks making the UK less rather than more attractive to the highly skilled and enterprising immigrants we need.
	Sub-Committee F has produced a series of reports on aspects of the Schengen acquis and its incorporation into the treaties, in particular into Title IV. Some of our conclusions are summarised in paragraphs 127-131. In short, the sub-committee has not been and is not convinced that the policy of the UK to retain independent border controls is likely to be effective or that it represents the best use of resources.
	In the course of our scrutiny of EU documents we have also seen that the integrity of Title IV is not likely to go unchallenged. The Government wish to confine measures affecting immigration to Title IV legal bases, but the EC treaty is not so neatly packaged. There is always a prospect that proposals on the free movement of workers within the single market, brought forward under the treaty provisions--by which the UK is bound--will impinge on immigration or frontier control issues. There is a serious possibility that at some point the UK will have to argue the case on its opt-out position in the European Court of Justice and that it might well lose.
	In conclusion, I would say that every Member of the House is likely to agree that overall the UK has a proud record of welcoming and integrating immigrant communities. This can best be continued and extended by the UK playing a full part in shaping a humane and efficient European-wide immigration policy. In spite of some of his responses to the report, I look forward to the Minister's remarks, which I hope will provide reassurance that the UK will do so. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on A Community Immigration Policy (13th Report, Session 2000-2001, HL Paper 64).--(Baroness Harris of Richmond.)

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, in producing this report, the sub-committee had the advantage of a chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, who was able to marshal a wide range of starting points with great but unobtrusive skill; and a learned secretariat, headed by Dr Christopher Johnson and Ms Leigh Gibson, who turned a huge amount of complex material into a cogent piece of history and analysis. It is rather a pity that the names of all the secretariat were not given credit in the report. I, too, echo the noble Baroness's anticipation of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
	One of the minor recommendations of the report concerned lifelong learning. Conducting this inquiry was certainly part of continuing education for me. Before the inquiry, I did not realise that nearly 100 million people pass through our borders every year, and that many of those who come to work are short-term migrants who leave after a contract. I also did not realise the extent to which economic development can promote migration, bringing as it does desirable skills and the income to travel.
	As the noble Baroness said, the European Commission's Communication stems from a combination of the fact of increasing movements of people around the world--legal and illegal, and largely unstoppable--and two specific problems in the European Union: the progressive shortage of people of working age and the shortage of skills and labour. It was common ground between us all that lack of skills and pockets of unemployment among indigenous European Labour markets should also be addressed by better education and training.
	We also cautioned that asylum and economic migration must not be confused; economic labour market policy drives migration policy, but the humanitarian status of refugees must keep its own validity.
	The UK has hitherto dealt with economic immigration mainly through the work permit scheme. When I administered this, some time ago, in the then Employment Department, it was clear that this was a scheme to help employers and the UK economy. But restrictions in the categories meant that it fell behind demand. Now it is being eased, so that numbers may reach as many as 150,000 a year. That is excellent news. The more employers are free to recruit the skills they need--which they are best placed to assess--the better.
	But the Commission's document envisages a cumbersome system of national reports and target setting. We prefer a more basic framework within which employers can recruit from outside the EU when they need to.
	To achieve this, we need not re-invent the wheel. Other great countries of immigration such as the United States and Canada have respectively a lottery and a points system. In particular, the Canadian system has as one of its criteria economic benefit to Canada, translated into points which an applicant, with no need for intervention by an employer, can score on, according to skills, education, fluency in the Canadian languages and so on.
	But a quota system might work better for unskilled or seasonal work. In fact, the Commission's document deals very little with low-skilled economic migrants. This is a pity. There are plenty of them because there is plenty of work for them to do. Legal entry routes, however, are few, and many such entrants are illegal. If there could be more legal entry routes, the undercutting of wages and other exploitation which undermines the operation of the European labour market would have the ground cut from under its feet.
	The Commission's document acknowledges the problem of "brain drain" of much-needed professionals from developing countries. One way of replenishing the UK's shortages of health professionals and teachers, however, would be to recruit freely from third-country nationals already settled in EU countries. We should also recognise that it is better for skilled professionals to do valuable work outside their own country than to be unemployed inside it; and the pattern of mobility can be influenced so that return after fixed-term posts is advantageous.
	The Governments response to this report acknowledges its relevance to the current national debate. It accepts the validity of the demographic concerns and the skill shortages. It is positive about the need to look further at legal entry routes, both to enhance the EU labour market and to diminish reliance on illegal routes, with all their dangers and links with organised crime. It allows for the possibility of an effective EU-wide policy framework.
	But I detect a curious ambivalence, almost schizophrenia, in the Government's response. On the one hand, the Government "completely agrees" with our view that,
	"labour migration must fit with wider employment policy",
	and agree with the European Commission that there must be,
	"coherence between policies on immigration and those directed at labour markets".
	They reassure us that Work Permits UK will continue to work closely with employers. And they also underline the clear distinction between,
	"those granted leave in the UK as refugees"
	and economic migrants. My noble friend the Minister emphasised this point particularly last Thursday.
	But the Government's approach does not follow that labour market view through when they refer to the people who have settled in the EU but have not, for various reasons, taken EU nationality. Suddenly the "coherence of employment policy" and the needs of our own labour market come up against a traditional, long-unquestioned view, dating from a different economic past and expressed in different language:
	"the Government does not support the right of free movement to legally-resident third country nationals".
	Baldly stated. Such a position precludes any discussion of how UK frontier control policy can be maintained while still enabling the free play of a competitive labour market. It shuts off the avenue of negotiation of the full British interest.
	Why should this old sandcastle still be there when the tide has turned? It is not what one would expect after reading the joint Treasury and DTI strategy on enterprise earlier this month, with its warning that the UK lacks skills which its competitors possess.
	But perhaps that is the reason: it is the Home Office which finds itself having to wield the interests of the economy and the labour market rather than one of the economic departments. Should we be asking why immigration policy is in the Home Office, with its focus and expertise on crime, disorder and police? Come to that, why is not asylum policy with the rest of human rights in the Lord Chancellor's Department? Immigration is not inherently criminal. Illegal immigration is criminal, but so are VAT irregularities and business fraud. But no one would suggest that business should be the direct responsibility of the Home Office. Is not immigration policy an economic policy with social implications? And if economic policy should mould immigration policy, surely social policy should determine the Government's attitude to the family reunification directive. Is it socially wholesome, let alone just, to prevent people who are domiciled here from having their nearest family with them?
	I only ask. But I do see some possibility of movement. The Government's response does say that their future policy will be guided by research on the potential impact of expanded rights for third country nationals. It may be that joined-up government will win out.
	I hope so, because as the grandchild of an immigrant--an economic one, but no stranger to persecution--I warm to the concept of the normalness of immigration, short term or long term, and to its usefulness. My honourable friend Barbara Roche, in giving evidence to our committee, promised further work on the acknowledged net fiscal contribution of immigrants. I have mentioned on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' House that the remittances paid to developing countries at least match the whole of development aid.
	All these factors can open our minds further to the positive implications of a rational immigration policy. The report has provided an important and helpful analysis. I commend it to your Lordships.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am happy to join in the warm tributes that have been paid to our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and to the excellence of the staff with whom the sub-committee has worked. The sub-committee studied this matter with great care and in what depth we could. But its implications are vast and our time was short.
	The document involves very significant changes in immigration policy--we were told so officially--but there has been little or no discussion on it. I do not believe that anyone outside Parliament has heard anything about it. I fear that, once again, basic and far-reaching changes may be about to be imposed on the British people without their knowledge or agreement. The matter has not been included in any manifesto. I do not believe that any party discussed it in this form at the last election.
	I was cheered by the Minister's remarks earlier. Perhaps I may be permitted to extend a warm welcome to an old friend from the same city, Birmingham, which we both represented in the other place. It is excellent to see him here. I was pleased to hear his earlier remarks because I am sure that the Government do not want this to be another example of the practice that I have described. Yet there is no doubt that they are being pressurised by Europe to agree the whole matter by 28th July. Today is the 23rd, and this is the only parliamentary debate that we have had on the matter. I stress again that it is a matter of very great importance. The proposals would change for ever Britain's right to say who may enter and live in Britain.
	Lack of debate on such an important subject is not my only reason for concern. Committee members simply could not get a full understanding of a number of points, because even the experts who were brought in to answer our questions did not know the answers. It was not their fault. No doubt they had attempted to go through the documents in detail, but they simply could not tell us the answers. For instance, we asked them whether UK residents holding EC long-term permits would be able to claim Schengen visas? They did not know. Would new British residents have the right to demand a British passport? They did not know. To what extent would such people be able to leave and re-enter the country without any questions being asked and without passports? They did not know.
	Even the written guidance was somewhat unclear. I wonder whether your Lordships can translate the following paragraph any better than I can:
	"Residence as a student would not normally qualify, but half of pre-doctoral students' duration of residence could count towards the duration requirement, provided that the student subsequently switched to a different category".
	I find it mystifying. When I questioned the expert of the day on that statement, she surprised me somewhat by stating that a young a child sent by parents overseas to a boarding school here could later claim that his school years qualified him to remain as a resident. I find that astonishing. She added that all who had been students for 10 years would qualify. Apart from the fact that a student surely ought to complete his studies before 10 years have elapsed, we ought not to dangle the carrot of residency in front of someone to encourage him to spend a whole decade as a student; and we should consider the needs of the student's country of origin rather than seeking to keep him here.
	The document states that,
	"Member States could refuse to grant long-term resident status where the personal conduct of the person concerned constituted an actual threat to public order or domestic security".
	In an Explanatory Memorandum to the document written in April, the right honourable Tessa Jowell states:
	"There are no legal issues arising from this document".
	I respectfully submit that there are. Let us suppose that someone is turned down on the grounds that I have just quoted; namely, that he constitutes an actual threat to public order or domestic security. Let us suppose that he does not agree with the decision. He can appeal against it. I can imagine a court arguing for hours about the difference between an "actual threat" and a "threat". Would a verbal "actual threat" be enough? Was he drunk when he made it? To whose domestic security does the actual threat relate? Finally, I do not even understand the difference between an "actual" threat and a threat.
	We have no idea how many people may wish to come to this country and remain here. The experts could not tell us that either. The matter is up in the air. It could be a small number who would be welcome; it could be a large number who would be difficult to accommodate. I do not refer to people seeking asylum--those who are in danger in their country of origin and who come to this country because they desperately need help. Such people are in an entirely different category and should be helped to the very limit of our ability. However, I cannot help thinking that when a country cannot meet all the health needs of its own residents, when it cannot house them all, provide all the necessary school places or even cope with all their cars on the roads, it cannot be right that Brussels can force us to take in further numbers. They may be wonderful workers of the kind that we need. But this country ought not to give up its right to say that we already have certain problems in our cities and towns and that we are in difficulty, when we do not know how many more people might have a claim to enter the country on these grounds.
	Finally, I must point out that those of us who fear that the EU intends to bring about a federation of Europe--a United States of Europe, not just a convivial club--have noted that the communication gives a further reason for the change:
	"The EU has low mobility compared with America".
	The idea is obviously that we should strive to match the United States. Of course mobility is lower in Europe than it is in the United States. The whole of Europe is not one country. America is: its people are one people, under one flag, with one language, one currency and one system of government.
	During my work on Sub-Committee F, I have seen many things that have given me great cause for concern. This is a much more far-reaching matter than is generally recognised. The indications that we have received from the Minister give us room for encouragement. However, I stress that these matters are extremely far-reaching and that the implications are very worrying.

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I feel honoured to be making my maiden speech. Since my introduction into this House on 9th July, I have been overwhelmed by the kindness and support that I have received and by the welcome extended to me by the officers and staff of the House and by many of your Lordships. While struggling with the geography of the Palace of Westminster, I have discovered a world of wisdom, where good-natured but profoundly serious debates on issues of national importance take place.
	This debate on the Community immigration policy has prompted me to speak on some of the issues raised. First, the report clearly highlights that due to falling birth rates and the ageing of the EU's population, there is a shortage of both skilled and low skilled labour. Skilled jobs in IT, health and education and low skilled jobs in agriculture, catering and building sectors will need to be filled by immigrants from different parts of the world to ensure a viable working population to support the future welfare of our nation.
	Secondly, in a free society like ours, immigration is inevitable. Such immigration is both from the developed and the new Commonwealth countries. It is interesting to note that in 1997, almost two-thirds of the non-UK immigrants coming into this country came from the developed world. The report also quotes another interesting statistic: in 1996, some 10,000 curry houses in the UK employed 60,000 to 70,000 people--which is more than the steel, coal and shipping industries put together.
	Thirdly, if the labour shortages are not filled legally, illegal immigration takes place, the consequences of which are clearly stated in the report. The case for planned legal immigration to meet our manpower needs and economic progress is compelling.
	I wish to emphasise that the immigrants who will come in will require a safe and a welcoming environment. It is not only a question of jobs, wages or profits but also of a civilised nation's responsibilities to ensure that we provide all the rights and safeguards to those who come to this country and respect their cultures and faiths.
	This is where the role of the voluntary sector comes into play and can make a make a major contribution. The state can provide the legal framework but it is the voluntary sector which is best able to provide the welcome, the support and the means of integration for the newcomers. I have reservations about the definition of integration given in the report, and prefer the definition provided by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who said:
	"Integration is not a flattening process of assimilation but one of equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance".
	Ever since I came to this country from Tanzania as an immigrant some 30 years ago, apart from my own business in the City of London, I have been involved in the voluntary sector. This kind of involvement is not new. I am an Ismaili Muslim and my faith considers charitable work and giving as one of its major Pillars of Faith. As a young boy of 10 years of age, I remember going to the mosque to clean the prayer hall, to help the elderly with their shoes and to serve drinking water to those who were disabled and old. Coming to the United Kingdom opened a new horizon and a challenge. Here was an opportunity to contribute to the community in which I lived. I am sure that many immigrants who will come to these shores to take jobs will also contribute to our society as volunteers in years to come.
	One of the major pathways into the community is the voluntary sector. Where the statutory organisations and services cannot reach the community, the voluntary sector does it effectively. When the state promulgates legislation which the community does not agree with, it is the voluntary sector which usually begins to voice those concerns. It does not always succeed, but it is becoming an increasingly powerful and strong voice to reckon with. I believe that the report has not recognised the role that the voluntary sector can play to help cushion the process of integration.
	The voluntary sector provides services to the community in numerous ways. As a former board member of the National Lottery Charities Board--now rebranded the Community Fund--I saw tens of thousands of voluntary organisations applying for grants for their work. Many trusts, foundations, corporates and government departments also gave and continue to give grants to the voluntary sector every year.
	But few funders wish to provide grants for core funding for salaries of executives, rent and other expenses. Everyone seems to want to fund projects, and to do so over shorter periods of one to three years. This policy needs to change in order to make better use of resources. Short-termism in funding creates uncertainty and, as a result, the sector is unable to build strong organisations. There are some good examples which can be emulated, such as the Home Office's Active Community Unit, which has successfully funded some major national organisations under its strategic funding programme over the years.
	The ethnic minority voluntary sector, which comprises some 10,000 organisations across the UK, is in a very fragile state. It suffers from lack of core and long-term funding, and is in a constant state of near collapse. As a result, the ethnic minority communities also suffer deprivation. The Ethnic Minority Foundation that I chair, and of which the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and Mr Trevor Phillips are trustees, has been established in an attempt to deal with this issue.
	We recently witnessed the disturbances in Oldham and Bradford. There has not been a long-term investment in these communities. Why should it surprise anyone if the Black, Asian and white young people have high unemployment, housing and health concerns? There is a need for a major programme of regeneration. It requires strategic planning, long-term funding and sustained development work. There are no quick fixes here. Long-term resources should be allocated to the voluntary sector over a sustained period of time to assist these communities.
	During my term as a trustee in Oxfam, I learnt the importance of a sustainable development programme to tackle poverty. Poverty is not only in the third world, but is here also in the United Kingdom. Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme is doing very useful pioneering work.
	I feel privileged and honoured to stand here and make my maiden speech. To me, it has been a long journey from Tanzania where I was born, to the sub-continent, where I went to school and to the UK where I now live. I come from a Trusteeship Territory over which Britain presided. I schooled in the sub-continent over which Britain ruled for 200 years. I was privileged to meet Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Mohamed Ali Jinnah as a schoolboy and saw their struggle for independence. I witnessed the successful independence movement of Julius Nyerere in Tanzania. I have also observed the grace and statesmanship with which Britain shed its colonial and imperial burden, and become a partner on equal footing with the newly-independent countries. It has been a great journey and experience at the end of which I find myself in Britain, especially here in your Lordships' House, where I hope to make a useful contribution to its deliberations.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish, with me, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on his fine maiden speech, which drew upon his long experience as a businessman who is actively involved in a wide range of voluntary and charitable work. Nationally, until recently, he has been a trustee of Oxfam, the Community Development Foundation and a board member of the National Lottery Charities Board. As we have heard, he is also the co-founder of the Ethnic Minority Foundation, which promotes and supports voluntary efforts in ethnic minority communities across the United Kingdom.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is the chair of SITPRO (the Simpler Trade Procedures Board), a body sponsored by the Department of Trade. He is further involved in health education, training and employment sectors here in London as a trustee of the St Christopher Hospice, Project Fullemploy and a member of the London East Training Enterprise Council. With that range of interests and community involvement, the noble Lord has a wealth of wisdom to contribute to your Lordships' House. We look forward to hearing his future speeches.
	I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, on the quality of the report from the Select Committee. It gives a detailed and clear overview of the situation facing countries like our own. The Gospel of St John records Jesus telling his disciples that,
	"the truth will set you free".
	The report before the House shines the light of truth into what are sometimes murky or dark corners of fear or prejudice.
	The truth is, as the report indicates, that in a free society immigration and, indeed, emigration are inevitable; and that in the UK and the European Union in recent years there has been a relatively small net immigration. In the United Kingdom, immigration from outside the EU has included significant numbers from the old Commonwealth and North America, as well as from the Far East and the new Commonwealth.
	The truth is also that citizens of poorer member states in the EU have not mostly taken advantage of their right to move to more prosperous member states. The truth is that most people are extremely reluctant to leave their homes. It is unlikely then that if controls are lifted further, floods of immigrants will pour in.
	The truth is, as well, that there are labour shortages in Europe, both in the skilled and unskilled sectors. Businesses short of those trained in IT cast covetous eyes towards possible recruits from India. Meanwhile, fruit and vegetables rot in British fields due to lack of labour to harvest them.
	The truth is that the support ratio--those within the active population as a proportion to those aged 65 and over--is at present just over four to one in the UK, but by 2020 will be under 3½ to one and, in the longer term, 2½ to one. The problems of supporting an increasingly elderly population are already with us and will get worse unless the numbers are changed perhaps through an influx of younger workers and citizens.
	And, of course, sadly but undoubtedly, in the UK the British media have all too often portrayed asylum seekers as bogus spongers, and that has cast a negative light over all immigrants. It is no wonder that the British Government are determined to keep control of their own frontiers.
	Yet the overall truth seems to be that unless and until controls on economic migration are relaxed, many people will be forced to try the route of asylum seeking. We all know how complicated responding to that pressure has become. Relaxing rules on economic migration would not solve all the problems of the asylum system, but it would bring some rationality into what is at present a rather chaotic scene. We must find a better way of controlling and assisting responsible immigration and emigration. The fact is that immigrants, whether asylum seekers or economic migrants, can often be of great benefit to the society to which they come.
	Several times in my ministry I have served in areas which have been transformed for the better through the energy and application of new immigrants. Sometimes those people have been forced to flee their homeland through war or persecution, but nevertheless the gifts they have brought have been of great social and economic value.
	We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who came as a Muslim to Britain from Tanzania. We have heard of his powerful contribution to the life of Britain. But I can also think of a large number of Asian people whom I got to know well during my time as Bishop of Leicester. They had mostly been driven from Uganda during the oppressive regime of Idi Amin. To the credit of Edward Heath's government, they had been warmly welcomed to Britain as a place of sanctuary. They had mostly had to leave money and possessions behind. But they brought things of great value: a culture of a strong family life and ties; a commitment to hard work; a belief in the importance of education; and a determination to be good, productive citizens in their new land.
	Between the wars Leicester had been one of the most prosperous cities in Europe, but its economy, built on a network of family firms, was beginning to falter in the harsher economic climate which saw family firms acquired by national and international consortia and financial decisions taken in far away places and by people who knew little of local sentiment.
	The incoming Asian people were mostly Hindu rather than Christian or Muslim, but in many ways their culture linked in exactly with the old Leicester values of hard work, strong family life, law and order and pride in the local community. From the wisdom of hindsight we can now see that those Asian people arrived at just the right time in history to give an injection of confidence, energy and skill to a local economy which was beginning to flounder.
	I have no doubt that the Asian people of Leicester have been, and continue to be, a great blessing to city and region. Perhaps even the good old Church of England has had a part to play in that success story because from the first local priests and parishes were determined to be good neighbours to their new neighbours. We discovered that the common-sense style of the Church of England, with its emphasis on worship, teaching and community service, fitted well with the Hindu spirituality presented in the new temples of Leicester. Of course, we could have had long and perhaps fierce arguments about religious faith and doctrine, but we discovered that standing shoulder to shoulder in the common task of community building was more productive and life giving than standing face to face in dogmatic argument.
	The other group of immigrants among whom I have been privileged to work in my ministry has been the Afro-Caribbean people. Here in most cases we are talking about economic migrants--people who have had the drive and energy to leave their homeland to seek a richer way of life for themselves and their children. Sometimes they have been disappointed. Certainly in the 1950s those coming to work in hospitals and with British Rail and the bus services--occupations where their work was desperately needed--soon discovered that, although their work was wanted, they themselves, more often than not, were not. To our shame those good Christians--they mostly were good Christians--were frozen out of their local Churches by local white folk unwilling to change their ways and wisdoms.
	In the face of that rejection many left to form independent Churches which have mostly prospered, but some hung on in the Church of their birth and today, a generation or two later, urban Churches of all denominations--including my own--particularly in London, are bulging with strong black congregations--wonderful men and women committed to their faith, loving their Church and playing their part in serving the world.
	It would not be putting it too strongly to say that such people have been the salvation of the urban Church at this time in history. Perhaps that is simply making visible a more extensive truth, for those worshipping in church on Sundays with their friends and neighbours are hard at work the rest of the week and form the backbone of our businesses, hospitals, schools and public services.
	That is the good story in the recent and the less recent past regarding economic migrants. Now, however, different attitudes seem to prevail and I have at least two areas of concern. The first concerns the British black and Asian children and grandchildren of those early arrivals. They are not economic migrants but citizens whose place in society should be assured and whose contribution to society should be welcome. Yet they risk being seen--in some places they are seen in this way--as effectively economic migrants, even though they are British born and bred. At a time when racial hatred has led to rioting in several of our cities, we can ill afford to alienate those young men and women whose forefathers did for us, to quote the weekend press,
	"women's work for women's wages".
	My second concern is that those seeking economic migration have often the skills which this country needs and needs now and for which, indeed, it is recruiting from overseas. Examples such as teaching, nursing and IT skills come to mind. There are three problems arising from that situation. The first is that the skills of workers who cannot enter this country for economic reasons are often lost to us. The second is that, in their desperation to start a new life, they enter this country, or try to do so, as asylum seekers, clogging up an already pressurised system and are still unable to make their skills available.
	The third problem is that they may indeed come here as overseas recruits. However, their contracts then will generally be short term and their expectation will be to return home. Their skills offer only a short-term advantage to this country. If they were welcomed as economic immigrants they would contribute to the long-term skills base of which we are desperately in need.
	It is often true that there are many wrong answers to a question but rarely one right one. The question of economic migration is arguably such a question. The long-term contribution of economic migrants to this country must be set in the context of the benefit afforded to their home country by their return and in any rational scheme of economic immigration the consequences on the country of origin should also be a factor for consideration. We must not be greedy.
	Although it is true that the pressure on the asylum system might well be eased by just such a rational scheme for economic migrants, it is equally true that clear thinking is needed to ensure that such migrants are admitted as such and because they are such. There must be no use of a system of economic entry to water down or compromise the humanitarian foundation for refugee status. Nor must there be any opportunity offered to those who would employ immigrant workers on cheaper terms than home employees.
	I have but touched on some of the humanitarian and economic consequences to society arising from current responses to economic migrants and mentioned in the report. However, I would endorse the report's observation that on the whole, over time, the UK,
	"has a proud record of welcoming and integrating immigrant communities".
	I am sure that with this record it is right to encourage Her Majesty's Government to seek to achieve maximum coherence with our European colleagues. A policy of opt out is understandable but it is unlikely to be viable in the long run. Perhaps now is the time for the Minister and his colleagues to revisit this policy.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on a most impressive maiden speech. I am sure we all look forward to his future participation in our debates.
	I was pleased to have the opportunity of participating in the Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, with the excellent secretariat to which she made reference. It was a difficult remit. We have presented a majority report since we could not all agree on the feasibility or desirability of a common approach to immigration policy. That has already been explained by our chairman. It is clear from Appendix 1 to the report.
	The consideration of our remit took place against a background of media pressure, mainly from the tabloids, about alleged "bogus" asylum seekers who were alleged not to be fleeing persecution but were really economic migrants. It was not part of our task to deal with the matter of asylum seekers. The Government have accepted that there are international obligations in that area and have said that they intend to honour them. How they do so is not, therefore, a matter for this debate. There will be an opportunity to debate the issue later.
	When the committee came to examine the whole question of migration, however, it quickly became apparent that there is nothing new about it. People have been migrating, leaving the land in which they were born, since the dawn of history. The world has been populated as a result of migrations, some of them very substantial indeed. It is natural for people to want to move to what are perceived as greener pastures for themselves and their families. Often those who do so are the most adventurous and the most skilled.
	In recent years, a number of factors have been responsible for highlighting immigration and sometimes presenting it as a "problem". In parts of the world, the existing social fabric has simply broken down, resulting sometimes in bloody civil wars. Refugees then flee, adding to the numbers of asylum seekers and economic migrants. In a number of countries emerging from communism, Western policies and influence have played a role. As a result of IMF pressures, attempts have been made to transit very rapidly to market economies involving extensive privatisations of state-owned industries. Unemployment has resulted and welfare systems have collapsed. Some have got very rich; masses of people have become impoverished. In Romania, for example, in a recent poll 60 per cent claimed to be better off under Ceausescu. Similar situations exist in Bulgaria and other countries. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that desperate people living in such conditions look to migration into the EU as a solution to their problems.
	Our committee received a great deal of evidence to the effect that immigration is in general beneficial to the receiving countries. Many of the immigrants are skilled and educated. Even those who are not make a substantial contribution in other areas of the economy, notably in agriculture. This is important for the EU since it is clear that all present EU members have demographic problems. They have ageing populations and declining numbers of younger people. It is true that it is not suggested that immigration can solve all those problems, but it can make a valuable contribution.
	EU governments, however, seem to have responded by instituting various methods of control. Those are not working very well. The attempts at control seem to us to have had some unfortunate consequences. It is clear that many people are quite desperate to get into EU countries--so desperate in fact that they spend more than they can really afford and risk their lives to do so. We have all been horrified that young people--I think 59 in number--were found dead in a lorry which was unventilated while they were endeavouring to enter the UK illegally. Those responsible were ultimately arrested and imprisoned. But this is not an isolated incident. Last week, four migrants were killed in the Eurotunnel. The local MP says that this is not uncommon and he is protesting about the lack of safety measures.
	A large crooked network concerned with transporting migrants is making fortunes out of the need of desperate people. It is also clear that, despite existing controls, many immigrants do manage to come here and then are vulnerable as "illegal" immigrants. That has led to a growth of the "black" economy with employers who are unscrupulous able to employ people at below minimum wage rates and without proper regard to health and safety because the migrants are too frightened to complain. That is clearly unacceptable.
	Our report raises the issue of opening legal avenues for immigration. Surely a potential migrant given the opportunity of applying for a legal right of entry would prefer this to paying heavily for being smuggled, with all the additional dangers that that can entail. We believe that the Government are willing to consider this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
	The committee gave some attention to the impact that migration can have on host communities. We say that the impact on scarce social resources deserves closer examination. Unless the social infrastructure--affordable housing, public services, health education and transport--is adequate for all, there is the risk that opposition to immigration may develop in the host population. The belief that immigrants are doing better than the host community is almost always unfounded but, nevertheless, can give rise to racist hostility. We are glad that the Government appear to agree with the views we have expressed on the matter and are developing a programme of work better to understand these issues.
	We looked at the issue, raised in the Communication, of rights for migrants who are legally resident in EU countries. It appears that those rights differ widely from country to country, particularly in relation to social welfare and employment. We noted that as long ago as 1992 the Select Committee recommended that long-term resident third country nationals should be given the rights of free movement and employment throughout the Community. The recommendation of the Commission that legally acceptable migrants be given a "hard core of rights" upon arrival was supported by the committee. In that context, we welcomed the idea of the directive on family reunification which we believe is under consideration. We think that that would lead to greater stability for migrants and would hasten their integration--by which we do not mean assimilation--into the host community.
	We understand that the Government have reservations, which have already been expressed. They insist on maintaining frontier controls, which they are entitled to do under the opt-out, and thus maintaining control over their own immigration policy. I realise that that is a traditional view based largely on our geography. We do not know how long it will be possible to maintain that stance. We understand that the Government welcome the discussion now proceeding on immigration policy generally and are sympathetic to much of the content of the Communication that it was the task of the committee to consider. I therefore look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister in response to the debate.

Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on his excellent maiden speech. I have had the good fortune of working with him for the past 15 years and I am familiar with his outstanding contribution to public life. I greatly look forward to the contribution that he will make to this House.
	I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and the sub-committee on producing such a lucid, thoughtful and considered report on the complex issue of Community immigration policy. The report and the European Commission's Communication on the subject are welcome, as they provide opportunities to inject rationality, objectivity and realism into the debate on migration, which is normally charged with hysteria and xenophobia and based on mythology.
	In the context of globalisation, labour shortages and demographic changes, the report rightly urges the Government to resist any attempt to tie European Union development aid to the reduction of "push factors" in the sending countries, welcomes the Government's commitment to further research on the economic effects of migration and recognises that managed immigration, though not the whole solution to labour shortages, can play a part in alleviating shortages in specific sectors, both high and low. However, the report rightly warns that any immigration policy aimed at meeting labour shortages must be formulated in the wider context of employment policy and that to deal with the question of demographic changes through migration policy without considering the long-term issues such as retirement age and pension arrangements would be misguided.
	The impact of legal avenues of immigration on the reduction of illegal migration is another area on which the report urges more thorough research. It rightly points out that the grounds for admitting economic migrants and refugees must not be confused and that the humanitarian foundation for refugee status must not be compromised.
	Opening up those issues in a calm and considered way will enable us to identify the potential and the limits of a Community-based immigration policy. It would therefore be a pity if the UK remained a reluctant or half-hearted participant in the debate. This is a golden opportunity for us to take a lead at the European level and to shape the basis on which the issue of immigration is discussed domestically. Given the interrelationship between migration, illegal immigration, labour shortages, demographic changes, the position of minorities and social and cultural developments in our society, and bearing in mind our experience in this area, it is important that the UK takes a lead.
	On the domestic front, every debate on immigration has been in the context of race relations. In some cases, that has been the sole basis of immigration control. The time is right to disentangle the two. In 1978, when I was its director, the Runnymede Trust called for a rational debate on immigration, stressing the need to base the question of entry to Britain on criteria other than race. More recently, the Institute for Public Policy Research has argued for a similar debate.
	Any immigration policy should be designed to achieve specific and stated objectives. Immigration policy should be humane and should meet international human rights standards, such as the right to family life, as a prerequisite, not just as a minimum standard. The criteria against which an individual's application to enter and reside are measured should be transparent and objective and based on considerations such as their likely contribution to economic, cultural and social life. Immigrants are human beings, not just labour. As someone once said, "We wanted labour, but human beings arrived".
	Those considerations should not be overlooked. A determined effort to change the terms of the debate on immigration in this country is long overdue. We need to influence and educate public opinion and develop a coherent approach.
	Disentangling the question of immigration from that of race would enable us to shift the basis on which we deal with questions of discrimination and social inclusion. The report rightly suggests that the question of integration should not be linked to immigration policy, but should address the issues of security of residence and legal equality of migrants, in particular the question of family reunification. If we separate immigration policy in that way, we can then develop strategies to tackle discrimination and social exclusion in an inclusive way.
	Our discrimination legislation has developed piecemeal. The complexity of the existing legislation makes it unnecessarily difficult to comply with legal obligations. Those defects were recently analysed in a review conducted by Professor Bob Hepple and his colleagues, entitled Equality: A New Framework. We need a coherent framework that covers all the main grounds of unfair discrimination comprehensively.
	We all know that discrimination and exclusion are now more complex and covert. Provisions designed to deal with all types of discrimination will enable an inclusive approach and encourage the building of alliances, rather than a fragmented approach, with each group pleading for a special case. The right legal treatment is a fundamental human right. One major step towards the recognition of the importance of that right to equality would be for the Government to ratify Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The other aspect of that approach would be to develop strategies to promote the social inclusion of all alienated and marginalised individuals, whatever their background, race or colour. We need to develop policies to give individuals the skills they need to succeed and build their confidence in the state.
	Reasons for social exclusion are equally complex. The alienation of young boys on estates is just as damaging to society as the social exclusion faced by minorities through discrimination. The report correctly draws attention to unresolved problems in the Western European labour market, such as high unemployment, low participation and lack of mobility. It urges that those issues should also be addressed through initiatives aimed at improving mobility, lifelong learning, retraining and tackling exclusion.
	In the modern economy, individual security no longer stems from the job for life, but from skills that we acquire throughout life, coupled with education on citizenship, civic participation and an appreciation of diversity and multi-culturalism. I have seen the Government's response to the report, but I should like to hear from the Minister what plans, if any, they have to shift the basis on which the immigration policy debate is administered and conducted.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a pleasant custom of this House of good manners that all speakers who address the House after a maiden speaker should compliment and pay tribute to him. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, it is no ritual that makes me join the others who have paid tribute to him. His speech was wise, well informed and powerful and I hope that the Government will take it seriously. I particularly agree with his comments about the need for a more coherent and powerful attack on racial disadvantage and social exclusion and discrimination, particularly in our cities, as part of a general attack on poverty and social exclusion across the country. In that connection, I agree entirely with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has just said.
	The arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, serves as a reminder. I believe that he came to this country in 1970. I was advocate on behalf of the 200,000 British Asians from East Africa who were the victims of the worst act of discrimination ever committed by Parliament--the enactment of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. We had to go to Strasbourg, no less, for the European Commission of Human Rights to decide that a violation of the right to equal treatment without degrading treatment had taken place. It was decided that subjecting people such as the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and the British Asians from East Africa to less favourable treatment on the basis of the colour of their skin was inherently degrading. That was a blot on the record of both Houses of Parliament and of the government of the time which, I hope, will never be repeated.
	As others have done, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond and her colleagues on producing a stimulating report on a subject of pressing importance across the European Union. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that the report contributes to a rational debate in an area which, all too often, is emotive. I am glad that the committee supported a common approach to several areas of immigration policy, not least because that serves to defuse the controversy surrounding the effective enjoyment of the fundamental right to asylum.
	I also agree strongly that European measures need to be taken to enable and encourage those granted humanitarian protection to participate fully in the labour market. As the report states:
	"Many refugees are highly skilled, and could contribute substantially to the economy of their host country".
	I would add that they could contribute not only to the economy but, as has been said already, also to the healthcare, the educational services and the general well-being of our society.
	The report needs to be read together with the report which will be debated later this evening on the draft directive on Minimum Standards in Asylum Procedures. Unfortunately, even though I served on that sub-committee, owing to a long-standing engagement I shall not be able to take part in that debate. Therefore, perhaps I may say now that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was a quite outstanding chairman who managed to keep us all together and steer us towards wise and radical conclusions. I pay tribute to him and add my tribute also to Dr Leigh Gibson, who served both sub-committees and who will shortly be leaving for happy maternity reasons.
	I was glad that the report supported the EU Commission's proposal to grant a hard core of rights to migrants on their arrival. I also welcome the reaffirmation of the Select Committee's recommendation as long ago as 1992 that long-term, third-country nationals should have rights of free movement and employment throughout the Community. It is regrettable that the Government continue to reject that sensible proposal. I hope that the Minister will do better this evening than he did this afternoon in explaining the benefits and burdens of the opt-out, which he did not deal with in relation to the Starred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker.
	The report is right to criticise the Government for continuing to insist on an opt-out in relation to Schengen and the UK's border controls. It is simply not practical to maintain the principle that passengers arriving here are controlled by nationality rather than point of departure. As the report states, UK influence on the negotiation of Title IV measures and on Community immigration policy will certainly be diminished. I share the report's further criticism of that aspect of government policy. As do others, I believe that we need identity cards and internal checks. I consider that to be better than continuing to opt out of Schengen.
	Inevitably, the report concentrates on European immigration policy. However, that is closely related to the promotion of equal treatment without racial discrimination. Unless we can achieve that across the European Union and beyond, there is a serious risk that any common immigration policy will encourage racial prejudice and be the source of serious injustice and even inhumanity.
	As has been said, in urging the European Union to address the issues, the report recognises that it is important for migrants to have security of residence and legal equality. To that, I would add the elimination of ethnic discrimination against asylum seekers.
	It is almost 30 years since I wrote a book with Geoffrey Bindman on Race and Law, in which we state:
	"The law . . . has two faces. One face confronts the stranger at the gate; the other is turned towards the stranger within. They express the ambivalence of public policies. The hostile expression of our immigration law casts doubt upon the friendly expression of our race relations law. However much our legislators might wish it were otherwise, the hostility is taken more seriously than the friendliness--on both sides of the colour line".
	We went on:
	"If our immigration laws are racially discriminatory in their aims and effect, it becomes difficult to persuade employers, workers, property developers and house-owners to treat people on their merits, regardless of race . . . Yet that is precisely the present position. Our immigration laws discriminate racially, in practice if not literally, between people seeking to enter or to remain in Britain. With one face, the law embodies and reinforces racial inequality; with the other, it expresses and urges racial equality".
	What we wrote 30 years ago has become even worse in important respects. I leave aside the neglect by successive governments of the spread of racial prejudice and discrimination in the living and working conditions of many black and Asian Britons. I well remember a Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, now long retired, who met me many years ago to seek my advice. Every time I came up with a proposal, he said, "Our Ministers won't take it seriously". Finally, I asked what they would take seriously. He said, "Well, a law and order problem". I said, "I do not think that distributing boxes of matches to ethnic minorities in this country ought to be necessary in order to make Ministers take it really seriously".
	When the previous Administration was persuaded by some in this House and beyond to strengthen the Race Relations Act, the then Home Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw, MP, decided to include an obnoxious new exception, permitting Ministers to authorise ethnic discrimination in any aspect of nationality or immigration functions with the exception of a few minor police powers.
	The Home Office also persuaded the other governments of the European Union to include a similarly obnoxious exception in the race directive, exempting all nationality and immigration functions, together with any other unequal treatment of third-country nationals based on their status, from the scope of the directive.
	What has been done under this new, sweepingly broad power is unsightly and incompatible with the fundamental human right to equality of treatment. The previous Home Secretary authorised immigration officers to discriminate solely on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity in examining prisoners, giving leave to enter or setting priorities for removal. The immigration officers can discriminate lawfully on the grounds of national or ethnic origin in choosing which asylum cases to prioritise if the Home Office considers there to be significant numbers of unfounded or similar asylum claims from people of a particular nationality or ethnic and national origin. In my submission, that is unfair and unjust.
	Even worse, the Government also issued a second authorisation, permitting discrimination on the grounds of national or ethnic origin in examining passengers and refusing leave to enter where a person is a member of a particular named ethnic group, including Kurds, Roma, Albanians, Tamils, Afghans and people of Chinese ethnic origin presenting Japanese or Malaysian passports or travel documents. I declare an interest in relation to the Roma as the chair of the European Roma Rights Center.
	All that is direct racial discrimination. Solely due to ethnic grouping, generalisations and stereotype assumptions about those groups, people are stigmatised and can be refused leave to enter or can be subject to special and discriminatory treatment at their point of arrival in the UK. As a class, they are deemed to be more likely to be illegal immigrants or bogus asylum seekers, and they can be singled out for discriminatory treatment because of their ethnic identity. We saw an example in the newspapers the other day where Home Office officials in the Czech Republic apparently turned Roma off flights to this country because they identified them by their colour and appearance as Roma. I find that completely unacceptable. In justifying that exception, the Government cited in a debate in this House the need to discriminate positively in favour of Kosovar refugees as a reason for exempting immigration functions. At no stage did they tell us that in reality the exception would be used to target Roma, Kurds or other groups solely on the basis of their ethnic origin. The scope of the exception and the extent of the authorisations under it are disproportionate and unnecessarily broad, especially in view of the importance of the fundamental right to equality without race discrimination, which is recognised in all of the covenants and conventions of international human rights law.
	I hope that the new Home Secretary will reconsider that aspect of Home Office policy. However, I am not optimistic in that regard for one reason. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, referred to the classic speech that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made in 1965, in which he defined racial integration. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, about the wisdom of that speech. However, I am bound to say--I am sorry to have to say this--that apart from the four years in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, served, twice, in liberal interludes as Home Secretary, the pattern of policy by successive Home Secretaries of either of the two main parties has hardly differed at all. It is time to have a fundamental review of the kind for which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, called.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on his powerful maiden speech. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, I have for many years had the privilege of working with the noble Lord in the voluntary sector. The range and breadth of his interests and involvement in that sector are truly remarkable. I am sure that he will make a valuable contribution to this House.
	I shall touch on only two issues that arise from the excellent report by the committee, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. Reference has already been made to the Government's opt-out provision. In paragraph 80 of the report, the committee expressed support--admittedly by a majority--for a "common approach" to Community immigration policy. The Government's response was very brusque. They simply made the statement that it is,
	"Government policy to retain control of UK immigration policy, having regard in particular to the UK's position on frontiers".
	It would be extremely helpful if the rationale that lies behind that statement were explained to us--that would enable us to test its logic and establish whether it stands up to closer examination. After all, many other EU countries also wish to retain control of immigration policy but they are prepared to compromise in order to reach a common approach. It would be interesting and valuable if the Minister outlined the way in which the Government's position is distinct from those of other governments who are happy to adhere to a common policy.
	The second issue that I want to raise involves the reference in paragraph 2.1 of the Commission's Communication to:
	"Partnership with countries of origin".
	That includes the issue of the "brain drain", which deprives developing countries of the skilled people in whom they had invested and whom they desperately need to retain in order to create wealth and social capital. As the document points out, immigration has positive and negative effects for the country of origin. The main positive effect is the remittances that are sent home by immigrants, which should improve standards of living and provide capital for development. The evidence about whether the negatives outweigh the positives is finely balanced. Accordingly, while it would be wrong as a general policy to seek to limit the possibility of skilled individuals emigrating from developing countries, there are instances in which such limitations are necessary. They include cases in which a government, in an effort to deal with temporary shortages of particular skills and experience--such as nursing or teaching--consider embarking on a campaign to attract large numbers of nurses or teachers from specific developing countries that can ill afford to lose them.
	The document recognises that the potential harm that immigration can cause to developing countries should be taken into account when determining comprehensive immigration policies. It is to be hoped that the Government will show similar concerns in future. In this regard, bearing in mind the Government's emphasis on joined-up government, there is a measure of irony in the fact that the Department for International Development, as part of its poverty focus policy, allocates aid for education to the developing world, and our immigration policies seeking to attract to this country the people benefiting from that education.

Lord Judd: My Lords, like almost every other noble Lord who has spoken, I congratulate the Select Committee on an outstanding report. When we consider the future of this House we talk a great deal about its role as a revising Chamber that can say to the other place, "Think again". I venture to suggest that some of the best work in this place goes on in Select Committees. The report that is before us is a good example of that. We should do well to make that a central part of our deliberations when we consider the future of the House of Lords in the year ahead.
	The report gave a balanced assessment. As the right reverend Prelate said, it sheds light where light is needed. The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, was a dignified and powerful contribution in that context. While listening to this debate I began to think that there are very few of us in the House this evening who have not known and worked with the noble Lord during the past 15 years. Many of us have had the privilege of working with him and are aware of his commitment to humanitarian and voluntary agencies. When I listened to him I detected his honesty and directness, his practical approach and his controlled emotion--he feels deeply and strongly about these issues. That, together with his intellect, will form the basis of the value of the contributions that he will make to our proceedings in the years ahead.
	My own observations come from two perspectives. I have worked most of my life in humanitarian agencies. I currently have the privilege of serving on the Migration, Refugees and Demography Committee of the Council of Europe, where I chair the sub-committee on refugees. If I have reached one conclusion from that work it is that it is impossible to disentangle the issues of migration and refugees. If I have learnt something else it is that we are often rather myopic in our approach. We look at the matter from where we are rather than wrest ourselves free from our immediate preoccupations and look at the global situation, from which we would see our own position in context and in perspective.
	The report underlines in one of its annexes that there are more than 22 million refugees in the world. Some of the poorest countries in the world have to grapple with the largest flows of people. Some of the very poorest communities in those poor countries have to take on the responsibility of giving a home, shelter and support to people who have fled God-knows-what terrible situations. Remembering that helps us to have a sense of modesty and proportion in our approach to our own situation. By definition, migration is a complex global issue which requires global solutions. If I were to make only one observation about the European dimension, which we are obviously debating this evening, it is that we must be careful that we do not slip into an exclusive European approach to the issue but that we see what we are doing in Europe as a contribution to the global solutions which are necessary.
	It seems me that it is not only in relation to other continents that we must remember the wider dimension. One of the things that I see in the Council of Europe is that the policy which is discussed in the European Union has extremely speedy and immediate consequences for countries in Europe which are not members of the European Union. Therefore, in that respect, it is essential to be working together with those outside the European Union as well as with our fellow members.
	My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the market. One of the paradoxes of our time is that our affairs, nationally and internationally, are governed by the principles of the market. And yet there is that very considerable distortion in the market because there is not free movement of labour. The absence of that free movement of labour means that the complexities of the situation are increased. If we are looking at solutions, we must look at them in an economic and social context as well as in a migration and immigration policy context. We must look at them in terms of our international trade policies too because if the wealthy countries of the world continue to monopolise the advantages which are available from the present international trading system and deny new and developing countries the opportunity to join the trading club and to participate fully within it, there are obviously immense consequences in relation to migration, which is the issue that we are debating this evening.
	Indeed, I wonder whether our leaders at the G8 this past weekend have really been looking at the interrelationship of so many aspects of international policy which must be addressed if solutions in any one particular context are really to be effective.
	This evening I want to dwell on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, were speaking about and, indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, spoke about in his maiden speech; that is, how we make immigration policy work.
	I see certain essential ingredients in viable democracy: strong visionary leadership, rigorous accountability and responsible media. The media are the lifeblood on which democracy functions. In the end, the democracy can only be as good as the analysis and the information on which it is functioning. Therefore, the media have an historic role. But perhaps above all, it is the determination, when confronted with issues, to ask why they exist and not to pander to prejudice.
	Indeed, perhaps I may go a little further. It seems to me that civilisation itself is surely about growing out of base emotional prejudice and using our creative, rational, sensitive and objective faculties to the full. All that is highly relevant to making a success of immigration policy. Pressures of migration will not go away. Therefore, it is imperative to involve a growing cross-section of society in understanding the causes--what makes people move--and to engage society as a whole in finding the solutions.
	But at the same time, it is important also to recognise what can, in fact, be perceived as a luxury of moral concern and compassion for those of us with the security, the wealth, the space and the privilege to be able to afford it but which can be threatening and provocative to those in the front line who face the greatest immediate social implications but who are often least well-equipped and placed to deal with them. That is why economic and employment policies, health, housing and education policies are so relevant as, indeed, are police training and race awareness education in society as a whole.
	I see the noble Lord, Lord Lester, opposite. Few noble Lords in this House have a more consistent story to tell in their commitment on these issues. Therefore, I hope that he will not mind if I share with the House an issue that has always worried me. When I was a young Member of Parliament, we put on the statute book, we put on record, what we believed was right in race relations policy in a decent, modern society. We introduced race relations legislation. But if immigrant communities discover in the reality of their existence that that may be on the statute book but that is not what they encounter in their daily lives, then the explosive situation becomes greater, not smaller. We must change the culture. We must win the battle for minds.
	That brings me to my last point. If we are to be successful in immigration policy, I am sure that the greatest single requirement is that of courageous political leadership. It is no good prevaricating. We cannot play it both ways. As the right reverend Prelate said in his remarks, we cannot talk disparagingly about economic refugees when we talk in very sober terms about the responsibility of people to get on their bicycles and cycle off to work if economic catastrophe hits their community here in Britain--a principle that somehow we deny internationally. We cannot talk disparagingly about economic refugees. We cannot have voucher systems in our asylum policy with all the humiliation and stigma that goes with that. We cannot have the attraction of people to the issue in their midst in a negative kind of way associated with vouchers. We cannot do those things and at the same time be successful in the drive for what we want to see happening in terms of the welcoming and conducive situation in which our immigrants can play a full part in society.
	I am afraid that too often, our message has appeared to be that "we will stop them" rather than that "there is a huge and growing challenge in the world from which we cannot escape"; that "we cannot do it all on our own but we are determined to play our part as a nation and to work flat out for effective global policies; and, incidentally, let us recognise the contribution, economically and culturally, that is being made, and has been made for many years, by people who come to this country from abroad". There is a difference in the approaches.
	There must be consistency. It is no good getting worked up about this. It is factually the case that we are a multi-cultural society. Therefore we had better get on with making a success of it, of seeing it as something to celebrate and on which to build. It should not be seen as a problem to be contained. If we see it as a problem to be contained, we shall make very little progress.
	Finally, I believe that the greatest divide in politics in the decades ahead is probably not between the political parties. It runs across the political divide. There are those who see that the world is inextricably an international, interdependent community and that the challenge of politics is how we make a success of that and how we look to the interests of our people in that context. We cannot shield and isolate ourselves from that reality. We must be part of it and make a success of how we handle it. Then there are those who would rather not face that reality or, having faced it, do not like it and move in the opposite direction. They pander to insularity, xenophobia and the rest.
	If only we could overcome that divide, which I believe runs right across the political spectrum, we could have a very good debate between the political parties about how to make a success of the international global reality. But let us make no mistake. Migration is part of the global reality and we shall find lasting solutions only by working out the global strategies which are necessary.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I was a member of the sub-committee that prepared this report, although I have since left it under the rotation rule. The subject seems to me to be of more than usual importance. We owe much to our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, to her predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and to our Clerk, Dr Johnson. Their collective knowledge and skills contributed greatly to what I believe to be an essential document on a topic of much significance. I shall confine my remarks to a limited number of points that I believe we need to bear in mind.
	As so often in European matters, the first point concerns the treaty base; that is the constitutional position and foundation. That is touched on in paragraph 15 of the report. The Government's view is that they retain the right not to participate in EU immigration policies, as we have obtained recognition of our opt-out under the Title IV protocol. In their comment on our paragraph 152, the Government claim that we have reserved our right whether to opt in to such polices or not. But we should note that the Commission proposes action on the basis of the economic needs of the Union and such matters are determined by qualified majority voting under Article 49. Should we object to that procedure, our objection would be justiciable in the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg. For that reason I attach particular importance to the passage in paragraph 130 of our report: that the committee doubted whether we could preserve the integrity of Title IV in the longer term. The Government's reply does not persuade me otherwise.
	My second anxiety concerns the manner in which the Commission have interpreted the decision of the Tampere European Council to adopt a fresh approach to free movement between the member states. As I read Tampere, the Council particularly wished to facilitate movement throughout the Union by those persons who are legally resident in a member state. As I understand it, some immigrants who are legally resident in this country, but who do not enjoy British nationality, are subjected to detailed questions in a manner that they find offensive if they travel to another European country. It seems to me that Tampere recognised that problem and sought to deal with it by suggesting that such persons should have a legal right to travel freely elsewhere in Europe and indeed to be eligible for settlement there if they so chose.
	The Government's response takes a different line. They are not yet persuaded that such a right would be consistent with our policy of maintaining strict control over admission into the United Kingdom. The Commission has also moved away from Tampere by, apparently, seeking to create a quite different right; namely, the right of immigrants to knock on the door of a member state and to expect admission because they want to work in Europe. Thus, I suggest that both Her Majesty's Government and the Commission have moved away from the broad concept suggested at Tampere, which was to implement the provisions of the treaty by creating an area of freedom, security and justice in the area of asylum and migration.
	Next there is the vexed matter of the "support ratio" on which a number of speakers have touched. That concerns the perceived need to import foreign workers to help to finance the burden of the ageing indigenous populations to be found in most European countries. I believe that the sub-committee was somewhat sceptical about the concept of the support ratio, not least because a young foreign worker, while paying taxes and contributing to the economy of a host state, would also make demands on it, quite naturally, by wanting to remit part of his earnings to his family back home, and in the host state by making use of hospital and educational facilities for his family living there. At present I believe that the support ratio idea lacks adequate research to justify serious consideration as a concept, but it is something that we may want to consider further.
	As other noble Lords have pointed out, there remains a strong case for economic migration when the migrant has skills, knowledge and commitment to work in a European country such as our own. Many of us have reason to be grateful to such migrants. In my own case, when I am puzzled by some problem with my computer, the helpful and intelligent person employed by the service provider is often a recent arrival from the sub-continent.
	I suggest we need the continuation and improvement of the present system, whereby a British company can advertise abroad for skills not readily available here and offer a labour contract that enables the worker to obtain a residence permit. Thus needs and skills are already matched under our current system; and I am encouraged to read in the Government's response of the further improvements that are under way. I suggest that we should not abandon a system that actually works in favour of some general right to admission, which would be vastly unpopular in the nation as a whole and which, in my opinion, is quite unjustified. Let us build on the system that we have.
	I do not share the Government's rather touching faith in the reliability of our existing immigration controls. It is not too difficult to avoid them by travelling to this country on a train through the Channel Tunnel or by using a small boat. In the past two days, we have seen in the newspapers that the Government are seeking to recover large sums of money from Eurostar for the migrants who have arrived on board trains.
	I can also give an example of the use of small boats from my recent experience. I happen to live on an east-coast estuary, where there is a quay and moorings. Boats that arrive from the ocean are no longer controlled by any public authority as the Government have closed the coast guard station at the mouth of the river, although the parish employs a harbour master, whose job it is to receive revenue from the use of the jetty and the moorings. A few weeks ago, the harbour master happened to see a strange boat arrive. It had difficulty in hooking up to the mooring but did so eventually. When he went out in his small boat to collect the fee for mooring, he was told to return in two hours' time when they would have the money. On his return he noticed that the considerable number of passengers on the boat had disappeared. Rather late in the day, he realised what was happening, so he telephoned our nearest police station which is eight miles away, which in turn telephoned the nearest immigration officer, who is 40 miles away. By the time he arrived, the refugees had disappeared into the countryside. However, a Customs officer was able to impound the boat but not much else.
	That suggests to me that the Government's faith in immigration controls is not abundantly justified. They are not as impermeable as we make out. I echo the thought suggested by others that if we are to continue with anything like our present system we may find it necessary to introduce identity cards so as to have some idea who is moving about in our country.
	I suggest that the Government have some way to go before they can persuade our partners in Europe to establish a practical, all-European policy that would satisfy the needs of the Union as a whole in relation to migration. I hope that this report, and the comments made on it today, will assist the Government in their further efforts to shape a long-term policy which assists those forms of migration which are useful, both for the receiving states and for the aspiring migrants. I do not believe that abstract rights by themselves are likely to produce the required results. I suggest that the aspirations of the existing European institutions should be observed carefully and, if necessary, restrained. It would not be good for the standing of the European Commission in this country if they are perceived to be entering the turbulent world of immigration politics in a doctrinaire manner.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. The most useful part of it is that one cannot promote an intelligent debate on national immigration policy in this country without placing it in its European context and, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in its global context.
	On several occasions, particularly when the last immigration Bill passed through this Chamber, I have been amazed by the extent to which the Government have still wanted to talk about British immigration policy, as though we were still a sovereign island country. The part of the Government's response to this report that left me most uneasy was the reference to our island geography. When I was brought up as a good, young Conservative I used to read G A Henty, with all those wonderful remarks about "our island race" which demonstrated how separate we were from the Continent.
	I remember the first occasion on which I was involved in any discussion about trans-national policing. For odd reasons I was asked to chair a seminar for the Association of Chief Police Officers in which English chief constables kept saying, "But we are different, we have secure sea frontiers". The Deputy Chief Constable of Ulster kept saying, "But we are not. I have a very large land frontier that is impossible to police". The myth that Britain is somehow different, in spite of the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has rightly said, that small boats now come in and out of English harbours without any sort of proper policing and each year 100 million people cross our frontiers, mainly between Britain and the continent, still holds back intelligent debate. So at least it is a very useful step forward. It is no longer possible to discuss British immigration policy without including the European dimension.
	Secondly, I welcome the emphasis of this report on the need for a wider European debate on immigration issues, which the Commissioner of Communication takes forward, partly to dispel mutual misunderstandings: the popular misunderstanding in this country, much propagated in the press, that other countries are letting through illegal immigrants who then camp outside Calais and try to get into Britain; popular misunderstandings in other countries--in Germany, for example--that countries like Britain are not shouldering their fair share of the burden of accepting refugees or indeed accepting foreign workers. I recently saw in the British press a quotation that Germany has a larger number of foreign nationals in its labour force than any other society. That, of course, is partly because Germany's citizenship laws are different from ours and from France's, creating the illusion of a difference that bears no resemblance to the underlying reality.
	Thirdly, however, we should all recognise that the diversity of European policies and of national attitudes, which this report notes, suggest that moves towards a single European policy are still very premature. Attitudes to citizenship and to integration vary across the European Union. When last year this sub-committee reported on the Article 13 directives on anti-discrimination, many of us felt quite nervous--I was still on the committee--about the speed with which those directives were pushed through. That was partly because the attitudes of Austrian, German and Belgian national law to non-citizens still remained quite different from those which we have painfully had to learn from bitter experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in this country. In this sphere, therefore, we have to take European integration gently.
	Next, we all recognise, as I am sure the Minister who will answer this debate will accept, that to some extent this is an artificial debate. That is because immigration, asylum, transnational crime, treatment of third country nationals are all part of a broader debate. If you lock off legal immigration, people-smuggling will increase and more people will try to make out a case that they are not only economic migrants but also refugees. Therefore, any attempt to discuss immigration without bringing into account these broader issues to some extent artificially compartmentalises the issue.
	I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that this is not purely a European issue; it is a global issue. We are facing a population explosion ourselves, in which there will be unavoidable outward migration. During the great 19th century population explosion in Europe there was, as this report notes, very substantial outward migration; 55 million people left Europe. If you consider the situation in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, and parts of the Punjab now, you will recognise that there will also have to be outward migration from those areas. How the rest of the world copes with this unavoidable migratory pressure is a global question.
	The sensitive issues are pressure from countries of high population growth to countries where population is stable or declining, from poor countries to rich, and, above all, of course, from insecure countries, from countries of conflict, to countries where it is possible to have a secure and stable family life, a job and other such things. The explosion of world refugees over the past 20 years, recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is part of the equation with which we have to deal. So there is a much broader context in which development policy, European security and defence policy co-operation, which is oriented towards the whole question of how we contribute to the strengthening of weak states and to the prevention or management of conflict, where it has broken out, are all very much part of the picture.
	I remember reading some of the papers prepared under the third pillar of the European Union after the Tampere European Council on particularly important and sensitive countries for outward migration--Morocco, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan. Those countries have a whole set of interconnected economic, population, political and conflicting problems. We clearly must have a European response. That is very much why my party accepts the need for a stronger European foreign policy and a more coherent European defence policy, and why we welcome the approach taken by the Department for International Development to try to put together a development and security policy. Our reconstruction and maintenance of failed states is a very important part of the equation.
	There are now somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000 Somalis living in London who were not here 15 years ago. They are here partly, of course, to pursue their economic interests, but, above all, they are here because Somalia fell apart. In the complexities of all these issues, I am also conscious that there are those among the ethnic minorities in London who are deeply upset about the number of Somalis coming into their communities because they threaten their sense of well being and compete for more jobs. That is all part of the complexity with which we have to deal.
	As everyone has said, Britain is and has for many centuries been a country of immigration. I remind you that the name Wallace means farmer. In many communities it was used to mean "the people outside". That is why the English called the Welsh the Welsh; it is the same word. The Wallaces in Scotland come from an area that has two other common local names, the Ingleses and the Scots--a good mixture then and a much larger mixture now. I did most of my politics in Huddersfield, Bradford and Manchester and I have a vivid memory of the centenary celebrations of the Borough of Huddersfield, when the ethnic minorities who had populated the town, starting with those foreigners much feared in mid-19th century northern England, the Irish Catholics, who brought their foreign food and foreign priests with them, followed by the Jews, the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Jamaicans, the Grenadans, the Bangladeshis and the Sikhs, all came past. That is how we have built a modern Britain. In a free society, that sort of movement in and out should be as open as possible; and I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, that movement in a free economy should be as free as possible. Bicycling in looking for work should not necessarily merely be confined within national frontiers in an integrating European economy.
	We all recognise the immense contribution that migrants and families of migrants have brought to British society and economy over many centuries, and which they continue to bring. There was much emphasis in this report on the difference between high skill immigrants and low skill immigrants. But one of the phenomena with which many of us here are deeply familiar is the extent to which the children of low skill immigrants very often become the highly skilled of the next generation. We buy our newspapers from two corner shops, one in London, the other in Yorkshire. As I see the children of these newsagents going to medical school or into the science departments of universities, I recognise that it is part of an historical tradition which the Huguenot immigrants and many others before them have followed.
	Immense diversity is brought into Britain from these immigrant communities, which we should all celebrate. However, at the same time we have to recognise that it is a problem for the existing resident communities and that resistance to change and fear of being swamped require us to exercise some control over immigration.
	Canvassing in Bradford over several elections, I have met levels of prejudice, often from the grandchildren of previous immigrants, which would horrify this House and would certainly not be expressed in this House. Fears that newcomers will undermine what people have already established are part of the pressure with which we must deal.
	What should the British response be? First, I want to question the Minister on the sustainability of the Schengen opt-out. Many of us believe it to be unsustainable in the long run and incomprehensible. The Government's response to paragraph 154 states that:
	"Since the UK decides on a case-by-case basis whether to opt in to the adoption of legislative proposals"
	it is not possible to have a general response. Can this House be given a report setting out which cases the British Government opt into, which they opt out of and what they see as the underlying rationale? Having served on the committee for three years, I became increasingly confused over the grounds on which the Government sometimes opted in and at others opted out.
	I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Lester about the control of immigration at airports. As more people move in and out of Britain, it is not possible in the long term to sustain the idea that we do not distinguish between people arriving from outside the EU into Britain and people arriving from inside. The Government's attitude to a debate on the issue seems to be similar to their attitude to a debate about the future control of soft drugs. They have tried to shut off the debate rather than recognising that there are issues we must discuss.
	The issue relating to third country nationals is also important and sensitive. I speak with an active interest because I teach in a British university which has a large number of foreign students. As students travel around from conference to conference, I increasingly find that French students can easily attend conferences in Brussels or Rome but British students who happen to come from Egypt or India find it difficult to obtain the visa which would allow them to attend. Britain, as a global country wanting to attract foreigners, loses out in not enabling them when they arrive to travel around the rest of the EU as freely as those who are living in the rest of the EU.
	I agree with the Government's response that more research is needed and that it should be published in order to educate the public. I am pleased that they intend--we all hope that they do--to take an active and constructive role in a debate which must be both national and European, not leaving it to the press or populist journalists while they remain silent. We need greater courage from the Government in leading the debate. Barbara Roche's speech was a start but there is a great deal more to be done.
	The fact is that we face a long-term problem: that objectives will often conflict; and that fears and emotions can easily overcome reasoned policy. Intelligent and constructive leadership from politicians of all parties is essential to the maintenance of a liberal society.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, one of the most difficult aspects of a debate on immigration is to discover the Government's policy on it. It is difficult to figure out what their policy is, what criteria they set and what their views are. As we saw earlier today, the Government have opted out of the EU control measures and they may have changed their mind about some of them. The government machine appears to have come to a grinding halt--we hope temporarily. We understand that the wheels are to be put in motion and that a statement will be made later this week but, sadly, not when the House is sitting.
	I welcome the Select Committee's report. It is full and interesting and it provides us with an opportunity to debate immigration. One must remind oneself that in relation to the report one is talking only about immigration; not about asylum or refugees. They are the subject of a later debate.
	I agree with much of what is contained in the report, particularly that immigrants to this country have created and added to our rich cultural diversity and have benefited us. That has been the case since our earliest history. What is the Government's policy? It appears to be that there should be some form of limited immigration but what do they believe it should be? We need to know.
	I want to comment on the smuggling of immigrants. It was highlighted in the report and ACPO estimates that it is a world-wide trade worth £7 billion. It is a modern version of the slave trade and it is terrible. Those who are smuggled into this country are bound to their employers. They pay no taxes but they receive no benefits from the country. Indeed, they do not receive the protection that they are due and they disappear into the low-paid black economy. Smuggling is dangerous and it leads to terrible tragedies, as happened in Dover a few months ago.
	I noted that during Thursday's debate the Minister said that he would be visiting Dover on Friday. Can he comment today on his visit? It is extraordinary that on one day last month 380 illegal immigrants were discovered on the trains of Eurotunnel. I note that the Government are seeking to charge Eurotunnel £2,000 for each illegal immigrant it brings into the country. Can the Minister confirm that? Your Lordships will remember that during the previous Session we debated the rules which apply to truck drivers. It is interesting that they have led to the capture of 4,000 stowaways in the past year and have cost that industry about £8 million.
	The one system which seems to work as regards immigration is the work permit system. Employers who need workers can advertise abroad and a quick service is given. I do not believe that there is evidence of great problems but I am sure that the system can be improved. I do not believe that there is evidence of overstaying and I understand that the Home Secretary wants to introduce a more US-style green card system. Can the Minister comment on that and say whether the Government believe that improvements can be made to the system?
	What factors do the Government consider when examining immigration? Is unemployment a consideration? This morning Ernst & Young published a report forecasting a recession and it estimated that perhaps an additional 320,000 people will be unemployed in this country. Do the Government consider such reports when deciding on their policy? What kind of workers do we need in this country? Should that decision be left to employers? Are we looking for skilled workers and what skills are we looking for? Are we looking for people who have ordinary skills which can benefit this country?
	During the debate and in the report there has been much mention of globalisation. I do not agree with everything that has been said about globalisation because I believe that "globalisation" means that every country and economy must be more competitive. It means that large companies can transfer jobs and work from one country to another without a problem. The Government must ensure that this country remains competitive on a world-wide basis.
	We have heard comment today about Europe's ageing population and the fact that we shall need workers from abroad. I am always slightly nervous about evidence of trends. I believe that when those things happen both the economy and needs change. Have the Government taken a serious look at the matter to discover the evidence?
	There will be changes in the future. Noble Lords will be aware that in 2004 Poland with over 50 million people, Hungary with about 22 million people and the Czech Republic with about 20 million people will seek to join the EU. There will be nearly 100 million more souls in the EU. That will change the types of skills within the EU and the number of people who want to work within it. It is well known that a number of Poles who obtain visas come here to work in the construction industry. However, a large number come here on three-month holiday permits, undertake work and then return home. I believe that a large number of people from those countries will come here to work, albeit for only short periods. There is an interesting debate as to whether we want people to work here for a short or long period. That is a matter which the Government should consider and tell us their views upon it.
	One matter that is addressed briefly in the report, on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark touched, is the effect on host countries. The report states that,
	"it is not possible to develop an integrated approach to immigration without considering the impact of migration policies on the host society and on migrants themselves".
	It goes on to state:
	"The brain drain is of particular concern [to] developing countries who can least afford to lose the investments which they have made in education and training particularly of those who benefited from [their education system]. The scale of this problem is increasing . . . notably in Africa and in India, and is likely to grow as shortages in Europe",
	create more pressure.
	We need to consider the effect on those countries whose citizens we encourage to come here. There must be a coherent government policy to ensure that we do not damage the economies of those countries. To bring people here for perhaps a year gives them a huge advantage; they are able to gain experience and skills, but if they come for a longer period, whatever it may be, that must have an effect on their country of origin.
	The Government must deal with another point raised in the paper, which they do not appear to address in their reply to the report; namely, how families are encouraged to come here. What is the length of stay after which a family is encouraged to join someone who is working here? We appear to have a different policy from our EU neighbours. Even in Europe there are different policies which relate to somebody who has been resident for perhaps two years and somebody who has been resident for 15 years. It would be interesting to hear government policy on that matter.
	I should like to refer briefly to the IT sector of which I have some experience. Much has been said about the skills which exist around the world. One of the effects of the Internet is that people do not need to come here to use their skills. If one has a software problem one sends the details via the Internet to Bombay or Madras and three hours later the solution arrives. There will not be a huge growth in the number of people who come here for that purpose because in many ways globalisation means instant communication.
	Last July the Government announced the Innovators Scheme. As I understand it, their two-year pilot scheme was intended to encourage people with skills to come here. Can the Minister say whether in the period since the scheme has been in operation it has been effective in bringing into this country people with skills? It is very difficult to forecast what the skills may be. I listened with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on which I congratulate him. I very much doubt that any economist, particularly one in your Lordships' House, would ever forecast, as the noble Lord explained, that there would be 60,000 people with particular skills working in curry houses. As the noble Lord said, that is a greater number than in many other industries. It is probably not the kind of area that some economists consider. We all know that economists do not always get things right.
	I should like to refer briefly to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee which touches on these issues. That committee made several recommendations with regard to border controls, in particular that:
	"Border agencies should have the necessary gateways to operate joint intelligence cells and allow closer operational arrangements to counter the displacement element of more effective controls".
	In effect the committee wants the creation of a border agencies directors group to report four times a year to try to bring together government policy. Perhaps the Minister is able to touch on that matter.
	The fundamental question raised by the report was one on which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords concentrated in their speeches; namely, whether in future it is possible to have our own policies. Will our policies be continually brought before the European Court of Justice to be tested? In effect have the Government signed away their policies? As the report said, there does not appear to be any clear division between immigration measures which we have theoretically opted out of and single market measures by which we are bound. Perhaps the Government hope that they have got it right, but I suspect that their policies will be tested in the courts fairly shortly.
	In conclusion, I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, in his written response to the report dealing with third country nationals he said:
	"The Government agree that it is important that those third country nationals who are long-term resident in the UK should enjoy clearly-defined rights and that these should approximate to those enjoyed by British citizens".
	I believe that "approximate" is a rather bizarre word to use in these circumstances. I have absolutely no idea what it means. I do not believe that anyone else in your Lordships' House knows what it means. I should like the Minister to tell us what it means, if possible.
	Secondly, the Government said that they did not,
	"support the extension of the free right of movement to legally resident third country nationals. The UK retains the right".
	Do the Government believe that that policy is sustainable when it is likely to be tested before the European Court of Justice?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, most noble Lords who have spoken will probably find my response inadequate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. It is less than four weeks since I made my maiden speech in this House. Therefore, I am not in a position to talk about history, but I enjoyed his speech very much. It is a convention to say that one looks forward to hearing again from the maiden speaker. As the noble Lord brings a wealth of experience to this House, we hope to hear from him again as soon as possible after the Summer Recess.
	I can answer one of the specific questions put by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He asked about the Innovators Scheme. So far 60 cases have been approved and the rate is more or less in line with projections. At the present time the potential number of jobs created is about 550.
	I shall not be able to deal with all the questions in the time available. However, I can provide one specific answer. On Friday I visited Dover and Coquilles at the other end of the Tunnel where I met staff and stood at the desk for a while. I saw some of the 24 kilometres of perimeter fencing. I also saw the ramps where for many nights in the early part of this year and late last year some 20 to 30 young men charged the police to get on to the trains. I have also seen photographic evidence of that. One reason the numbers have dropped substantially is the considerable amount of work that has been done there. However, where one closes off one avenue, the problem migrates elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, gave a classic example relating to small harbours. Recently, six people, in sheer desperation, rowed an engineless speedboat across the Channel, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. That just shows that where one route closes down, another will be used.
	One of the reasons why the penalties--if I may put it that way--are being consulted on so far as concerns Eurotunnel is in order to keep a level playing field. They apply to the ferries, the lorries and Eurostar. There is no reason why any one sector should not be part of the scheme. It has worked and been extremely successful in achieving its target. It is not there to raise revenue. I make that absolutely clear.
	One or two noble Lords referred to last Thursday's interesting debate to try to separate out some of the issues relating to immigration and asylum. I want to stick as much as I can to the report and hope to avoid the risk of repeating what I said then. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, on chairing the sub-committee. I shall not kid her nor the House that I have read the whole report, but in the last few weeks I have dipped into it and its evidence. I am well aware of the effort made by members of the committee and its staff in producing such a report. It is a report that engenders and takes forward mature debate on this issue. There is no question about that. To that extent, the Government are wholly supportive of the rationale behind, and the attitude in, the report. It is extremely helpful in terms of the conduct of public policy on this important issue. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the attitude of our media is not mature in respect of the conduct of public policy on matters relating to immigration. Nevertheless, there have recently been one or two examples of such a maturity starting to develop. I hope that today's short debate will help to take that matter forward.
	I apologise for the late formal written response to the report. There is nothing new; it just came late. I shall take some of the issues raised by the Select Committee in the order that they appeared in the report. I refer first to the case for facilitating legal economic migration and to why that is an important issue for the Government. Migration in all its forms is increasingly an international phenomenon. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, mentioned in the example he gave, that people are moving and working across international boundaries in ways that were just not thought about even a decade ago. There has been a massive change in that respect. All governments, including the member states, must make sense of such developments.
	Migrants play an important role in the labour market, through easing recruitment difficulties and bringing in new skills, whether IT or other skills. The recently published Home Office research brought out the contribution that migrants can make to growth, job creation and investment.
	In common with other member states, we are faced with an ageing population. I do not believe that there is a country in the world that is not faced with that situation. When at the DSS, one of the issues that came home starkly to me at an international conference on ageing was the projections for the next 30 years. Most countries in the world will be affected because of age structures in the overall population. It will affect some of the advanced western states in Europe substantially. It does not affect us so much. There is no demographic time bomb. That is not an issue. But we are faced with the pressures on our services caused by an ageing population and a smaller workforce. The Government acknowledge that it is a complex issue.
	Migration patterns were highlighted in the report. The Government have conducted research and are committed to further research in this area. The report touches on illegal migration, a theme of some of today's speeches. As the Select Committee report said, one of the challenges is to tackle the number of illegally employed migrants. We have a problem here, to which I alluded last week at Question Time.
	We have a lightly regulated employment market and I can assure your Lordships that the Government are not in the business of regulating for regulation's sake. We have too many regulations in some areas. The Better Regulation Task Force is always chastising Ministers about this issue. It is very easy when there is a problem for Ministers to reach for a new regulation, but it is not always the answer. Indeed, big problems do not always require big Bills to solve them. I take it as axiomatic, without enunciating new government policy, that we should try to put together a mature policy on planned migration, based on skills and other factors as well as on labour market needs. Whether or not it is a response or a reaction to cut down on, let us say, people misusing the asylum system, if we do not take steps to make sure that we can stamp out illegal employment and the exploitation that flows from it, and the damage thereby caused to legitimate businesses, we defeat our own purpose.
	So we may need to look at greater regulation in employment to deal with illegal workers, whether seasonal or more moderately long-term workers who would have settled status here. As I shall say to my senior colleagues in due course, it would be ludicrous if we go down that road not to look at the issue of illegal employment and the areas we would need to tackle. That may bring about more regulation. I can hear employers and everyone else saying, "Oh, this is all wrong", but the consequence otherwise would allow exploitation of people and would damage legitimate businesses. That of course is counter-productive.
	The Government acknowledge the work undertaken at EU level to combat illegal immigration. As many noble Lords will be aware, member states of the EU agreed at the special European summit at Tampere in 1999 that they must work together to combat illegal immigration. There is an enormous amount of cross-government work here. There have been many criticisms in the popular press about the lack of action among the French. From my experience in the past few weeks since I arrived at the Home Office, I can say that that is not the case. The French are actively on the case. They see it as much a problem for themselves in their own locality, both socially and economically, as it is for us. There is a great deal of co-operative partnership working on this issue which we are committed to tackling with our partners. We shall not solve these problems on our own.
	I turn to the work of the European Commission. The Commissioner responsible elucidated the Community immigration policy in a paper earlier this month at a forum in London. His speech and the contributions of those who spoke at the forum were very welcome. We look forward to seeing how the Commission further develops its thinking under the Belgian presidency and at the European conference on migration in October and the European Council later in December.
	The issues are by definition international. We cannot deal with them in isolation. Therefore, we aim to ensure, where we can and where appropriate, that the United Kingdom's migration policies are as broadly in line with those of other member states as we can possibly get them. At the same time, however, the UK intends to maintain its existing frontier controls in accordance with its protocols secured at Amsterdam; and our approach to the European debate will obviously need to take into account our position on frontiers. I made that absolutely clear at Question Time. We do not share the view of the committee that a long-term resident third country national should have automatic free movement rights throughout the European Union. That is the position. I do not want to play games with the House, but I still have to face the fact that we cannot make a collective government decision until we have the message cleared around Whitehall. We shall deliver our decision before 28th.
	I am not hiding from the House in any way, shape or form the Government's view. It is not a contradictory position. We have a land border with the Republic of Ireland and, frankly, the Channel Tunnel is, effectively, a land border--it has to be policed as a land border--so we are not an island in the way that we used to be. It is because the Channel Tunnel is effectively a land border that we have co-operation between the French and British immigration officers working in France at the terminal in a way that did not occur many years ago. Of course that juxtaposition gives the French the same right over here. That is why we have a reserved right to decide whether to opt in. It does not mean we want our immigration policies to be seriously at odds with other member states. That serves no one at all. The bottom line remains that of maintaining the integrity of our border controls. We shall be constructive.
	I should like to outline the progress that we have tried to make in facilitating legal migration. Last year Barbara Roche made a seminal speech. The Home Office has promised a report, to which end we have initiated a large programme of research. At present I am still reading that research and listening to evidence. We want to find out what brings people to this country, what their skills are, where they settle and how they become included into society. We are also looking at the impact on source countries. That is an important point. We may have to defend ourselves when recruiting nurses and teachers from the third world. Clare Short has made it abundantly clear that it is not our function to damage the economies and social fabrics of other countries. However, often we are training those workers in our higher education system. They can then return to build up their home economies. We must be careful of the impact in this area.
	We have streamlined the work permit system. One of the changes made to the machinery of government has been to bring the work permit unit into the Home Office. I have already said that, as a team of new Ministers, we are now looking at a range of measures. We expect to issue 150,000 work permits this year. That is a considerable increase on the figures for previous years, which were approximately 100,000 in 2000 and 55,000 in 1999. It is clear that a substantial increase in the number of work permits issued has taken place. The system seems to work and is efficient. We know where people are working. However, the work permit relates to one employer. Nevertheless, as David Blunkett has made clear, we wish to examine all the factors surrounding work permits. I have already mentioned the new innovators entry route.
	In the Pre-Budget Report last year an announcement was made as regards exceptionally skilled people. We have not yet announced the details of this proposal, but we shall be ready to do so later in the year.
	I do not look on these issues as problems; they are challenges. We must face those challenges in the way in which we formulate our policies. Perhaps I may speak for a further moment. I apologise to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House for this short delay.
	One or two noble Lords mentioned identity cards. Issues will arise as regards knowing who is in the country. We want to stamp out illegal employment, both by the employer, who may be colluding in the exploitation, and by the employee. Such practices will lead to greater pressure for people to be able to say who they are and where they are from. I am not saying that there has been a change of policy on this, but these issues must be openly debated. It is no good saying that this is a closed system. We live in a changing world.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has apologised for not being able to be present now, touched on the issue as regards airports. He pointed out his vehement opposition to the discrimination which takes place in relation to different aircraft landing here from certain countries. However, the fact is that we use risk assessment. We cannot police every gate at Heathrow Airport, where there are some 94 gates. We do not seek to watch every aircraft which comes in to land. We wish to interrupt the flow of tourism and trade as little as possible. But where, on the basis of intelligence and risk assessment we can locate by nationality or airline the point from which immigrants began their journeys and pay special attention to such cases, I shall stand here and defend that as a policy because that is the best way of solving the problem. Ministerial discretions are open and personally reviewed each month. There is no intention to undermine the Race Relations (Amendment) Act passed last year.
	In the time available I have given an inadequate response to many of the serious issues which have been raised. However, the Government have produced a written response. As I well know from my short time in this House--I do not say this in any pejorative sense--this issue will not go away. I am sure that I shall respond to other such debates from this Dispatch Box, and in the future perhaps initiate debates on this very important issue.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, the hour is late, but I should like to thank all noble Lords who have made such excellent contributions to this thoughtful and heartening debate. I greatly look forward to reading at leisure what I have enjoyed listening to this afternoon.
	First, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on his maiden speech. He talked of the responsibilities of civilised nations and the importance of the work of the voluntary sector throughout the community. He said that the report does not recognise this. I can apologise for that and cite the constraints of time in looking at the wider evidence.
	The Treaty of Amsterdam established Community competence for immigration and asylum. Tampere called for a common EU policy to be developed, which included looking at establishing partnerships with countries of origin, fair treatment for third country nationals and the management of migration flows. All this should be set against the background of the recognition that the zero immigration policies which have been used over the past 30 years are no longer appropriate. Immigration will continue, whether legally or illegally, and it is essential that we discuss openly and with other member states how best to deal with the challenges and the benefits facing us.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 2001

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this order gives effect to Recommendation 2 of the SSRB that there should be an increase in Lords Ministers' salaries of £4,000 in two instalments of £2,000. The order also gives effect to similar increases to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords and the Opposition Chief Whip. I fear that this is an inevitable, if lamentable, consequence. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his brief introduction to the order. I have only one or two points to put to him.
	First, it is worth reading these documents because a little germ of information is always found. I was interested to discover that the Attorney-General is paid more than the Lord Privy Seal. Since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was the Attorney-General in the last Parliament, that means that he has taken a pay cut in order to become the Leader of the House. I wonder whether that is a worthwhile sacrifice--a question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Can the noble and learned Lord explain the discrepancy, since he was the first and original holder of the post of Attorney-General in this House?
	Secondly, I discovered to my cost that during the period of the dissolution, Members of the Opposition in receipt of a salary were not paid. On further research I discovered that Ministers were paid, as were the chairmen of our various committees. Can the noble and learned Lord explain the position to me? He does not need to tell me immediately because he may not have the information to hand. However, I should like to know on what legislative basis that was done.
	Finally, I take it from paragraph 2(b) that the commencement date is from 1st April 2002. Does that mean that those Ministers who left office after the election will now receive their severance pay at the new rate? Furthermore, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether the severance period has increased from three months to six months, as I believe it should?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to say that we have no objection to this order. No doubt if we want capable people to accept these offices, they must be paid a reasonable salary. In many cases I have to say that, even with the increases provided for by the order, the salaries they will receive are substantially lower than they would command if they were acting in professions or business outside your Lordships' House.

Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards the difference between ministerial and Opposition salaries. There is always government, but in time of dissolution there is no Parliament and therefore there can be no parliamentary salaries.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the comments of the noble Lord sitting on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench; namely, that we were grotesquely underpaid. All that I can say in response is to echo the words of the late lamented Noel Coward: I do so agree.
	I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for pointing out that in my present incarnation I am distinctly worse off than I was before the election. It is always gratifying to have such points brought to one's mind. I think that it pays tribute to my continuing life of self-sacrifice in the public interest, which I shall endeavour to bear with some fortitude.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Literacy etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001

Earl Russell: rose to move to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Social Security (Literacy etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001 and to lay amended regulations which ensure that the reasons for failure to attend training are recorded and which provide that no sanction shall deprive claimants of more than 10 per cent of the sanctioned benefit.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the regulations which this Motion addresses are pilot regulations which deal with those at present in receipt of job seekers' allowance who are found to be deficient in literacy or numeracy. The regulations provide for them to be given instruction, and to suffer benefit sanctions of unspecified quantity should they refuse to take up the instruction on offer.
	The effect of my Motion would be, first, to follow the suggestion of the Social Security Advisory Committee that, before any sanctions are proposed, we should discover the reasons for which people are refusing to take up that instruction; and, secondly--on minimum income grounds--to restrict any sanction that is imposed to not more than 10 per cent of the relevant benefit.
	There is a good deal of common ground as well as some fairly deep disagreement between us. We agree on the extent of the problem. That is not a matter of bandying figures; the figures depend more on the definitions of "illiteracy" and "innumeracy" than on any possible counting. We all agree that it is an extremely serious problem. We all agree that there is a serious need for a remedy and that if we can find a way of providing it, it is important that we should do so.
	The first of our areas of disagreement is the use of sanctions. The Minister knows that we have a long-standing argument about the gravity of sanctions. I shall not detain the House with that issue now; the arguments are familiar. Secondly, we disagree about whether sanctions are an effective remedy for this problem. Thirdly, we disagree about whether the pilots--for these are pilots, and we welcome them as such--are adequately designed to discover which of us is right on the underlying disagreement about sanctions.
	In another place, when my honourable friend Mr Heath objected to sanctions, the Minister objected to what he said on the ground that sanctions were introduced in 1911 by Lloyd George--a slightly unexpected argument for which I have plenty of answers. When the Minister can persuade me that the Government's policy on the London Underground is identical to the policy of Clement Attlee and Herbert Morrison, then I shall develop those arguments. Meanwhile, I will let the matter drop.
	For me, the crucial point about sanctions is that, in the network of responsibility, the responsibility to keep people alive is not contingent. We do it for condemned murderers; we do it for condemned terrorists. I could be persuaded that my view of sanctions is unnecessarily stressing the degree of severity if I were to get information out of the pipeline which was to show me that the effect of sanctions on those who suffer them is a great deal less serious than I suppose.
	In that context, I should like to ask the Minister exactly what tracking will be undertaken of those who are subjected to sanctions. Will we discover what means of subsistence are available to them? Will we discover what destinations they get into? Will we discover what levels of debt they build up? It continues to concern me that the department does not keep statistics on the levels of debt among those on social security benefit. And how many of them--as the Social Security Advisory Committee, in an extremely able report, fears--will be sucked into the black economy?
	The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, knows how difficult it is to answer that question. But he also knows, and has triumphantly proved, that it is possible to make a beginning. It is a real question that the Social Security Advisory Committee has asked. To make the pilot adequate we will need some kind of an answer.
	I should also like to know the answer to the question asked by Mr Boswell from the Opposition Benches in another place. Will there be a loss of benefit pending appeal? The Minister said that he would have to check that. I hope that a week has been sufficient time for that checking to have taken place.
	There is then the question of whether sanctions fit the problems of people who suffer a lack of literacy and numeracy and will not attend courses. This is the area where the Social Security Advisory Committee is most worried. It is concerned that the Government are assessing the extent of the disability but are making no attempt to discover the reasons either for the disability or for the failure to attend a remedial course. If we do not know what is the cause of the conduct complained of, how then can we know what is the appropriate remedy for it? This is a serious point. As the Social Security Advisory Committee has pointed out, these regulations will deal with people suffering from a singularly diverse set of problems.
	I know that in the other place the Government agreed to make exceptions for those suffering from severe learning disabilities. That is welcome. I also welcome what was said in another place about the need to provide training, especially in recognising mental disabilities, to those who will administer these tests. I welcome that. If the Minister can add any more information to it, I shall be grateful.
	I should be glad to know what is to be done about dyslexia. As the father of a dyslexic son, I know how difficult the condition can be to identify. But, with the best will in the world, in this area there will be errors. From time to time, sanctions will be imposed on people who suffer from physical and mental handicaps, and they will from time to time be punished for what is not their fault. The Minister may say that that should be borne for the sake of the greater good, but I think we must concede that there is a possibility of this effect.
	I become more and more intrigued by the new Labour psychology behind this collection of sanctions, punishments and so on. It assumes, first, an extreme rationality of response among those who are subjected to these sanctions. Secondly, it assumes a calibrated, almost Benthamite, response to punishment. It comes, curiously, from a party which has experience of whipping Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
	It is also rather curious to imagine these things happening to the same people at the same time. Those who possess the extreme rationality assumed in this universe usually know that they need to learn to read anyway; the question of punishment does not come into it. As soon as you are dealing with people who did not learn to read, or did not want to learn to read, you are dealing with people who are outside this perfectly rational universe and from whom you may get responses other than the totally rational ones these regulations presuppose.
	In fact, the punishments will fall on those least likely to respond to them in the way desired. They will fall on a combination of the inadequate and the bloody minded, on those who suffer from an inability to read--the handicapped, the disadvantage or the neglected, who sometimes respond by treating the world in the way they believe the world has treated them--and on those who never wanted to learn to read. This is a matter of more importance than we sometimes allow.
	My wife can still remember when, at the age of three and a half, she began to want to read. When all the adults in the car burst into fits of laughter at what she now recognises as a Guinness advertisement, she was so infuriated at being shut out from the joke that she became determined to read, and learnt to do so in two weeks. Whereas I, on the other hand, never succeeded in learning algebra because I never wanted to know what "X" was.
	The people who will be caught by these regulations are people rather more like me than like my wife. I do not think I would have begun to want to know what "X" was if I knew I was going to be deprived of benefit for not knowing. I would instead have become extremely angry. I shall not use the word "bloody minded", but if people chose to use it, I would not necessarily feel that I could refute it.
	When you are dealing with education, the trouble is that you can take the horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can make people attend the classes, but you cannot make them want to learn. So the pedagogic basis for the regulations is extremely dubious. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has expressed considerable doubts about the proposals. It says:
	"We are concerned . . . that the imposition of benefit sanctions represents neither a necessary nor an effective lever for change and are actively unhelpful in redressing the nation's basic skills problem".
	I agree; and I speak for my noble friend Lady Sharp as well as for myself.
	If we find the reasons for non-compliance and if the people who are subject to sanctions are tracked so that we can assess what happens to them and weigh it against the evil that we know exists already, the pilots will judge these matters. If they do not, we shall be returning to this matter in a year's time or less. I beg to move.
	Moved to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Social Security (Literacy etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001 and to lay amended regulations which ensure that the reasons for failure to attend training are recorded and which provide that no sanction shall deprive claimants of more than 10 per cent of the sanctioned benefit.--(Earl Russell.)

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches share the Government's desire to raise the basic skills levels and the employability of adults. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is an extremely serious problem. We shall support the Government in any considered and reasonable plan to encourage and better equip people, particularly those on the fringes of society, to find work. We are not opposed to benefit withdrawals under the right circumstances.
	We do not, in principle, object to the setting up of pilot schemes. Nor do we object to pilots with sanctions attached. However, in the case of the regulations that we are considering today, we have reservations.
	We question why the regulations are being bounced on us right at the end of the parliamentary Session. Why are the Government in such a hurry? We must get the pilots right, and I am sorry that the Government have not responded more fully to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and to those organisations that replied to their consultation. Most of them have been in touch with us and continue to have real worries about sanctions and their appropriateness in this case. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the route of the stick rather than the carrot, against the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee?
	The department's memorandum assures us that the pilot proposal, singling out adults for benefit sanctions, is in accordance with European law and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are not convinced that they are, particularly in regard to the convention on human rights. Nor was the Social Security Advisory Committee, together with a number of organisations with whose members I have spoken. Will the Minister give the House a clear declaration that the Government believe that their proposals are not open to a successful challenge? What arrangements are in place for appeals against the withdrawal of benefit?
	On these Benches, we welcome the pilot incentives which allow unemployed adults to address their basic skills needs. Incentives have considerable potential to encourage adults, through the use of modest rewards, to acknowledge literacy or numeracy difficulties which they may well otherwise wish to remain concealed, and which at the end of the day might reasonably be regarded as private matters rather than the concern of the state.
	Adults are more likely to be motivated by incentives congenial to their needs than they are by a "one size fits all" disincentive which takes no account of individual learners and their learning histories. The threat of financial sanctions may ensure the attendance of claimants on courses. It does not mean, however, that they will, or can, achieve and make progress. Compulsion also means that they may be ill disposed towards learning and towards teachers, quite apart from any negative feelings and low esteem that may result from the disclosure of their difficulties.
	What will happen to the attender, rather than the participant? Will his or her benefits be subject to sanctions? Do the Government have any evidence that adults can be forced to improve their literacy or numeracy against their will? Those people--

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord's point puzzles me. What evidence is there that a person will be an attender rather than a participant? What distinction is the noble Lord drawing?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I was referring to the person who turns up and just sits quietly in the back row without contributing in any way.
	Do the Government have any evidence that adults can be forced to improve their literacy or numeracy against their will? Those people with lower levels of basic skills at whom sanctions will be targeted are those who have benefited least from their initial educational experience as children. Why will an element of sanction prove more attractive or change that attitude? Indeed, it could be argued that it will serve to perpetuate their distrust of the education system.
	So long as jobs exist in the UK which do not require higher levels of literacy and numeracy, there is a moral case to be argued that unemployed people should not be penalised for failing to aspire to higher level jobs. It is right for the Government to promote healthier lifestyles, but it would be wrong for social security regulations to penalise benefit claimants who choose not to take regular exercise!
	The reasons adults have low levels of basic skills are many and various. An effective policy for improving these levels will need to be sensitive to this multiplicity--a condition that a single instrument in the form of a sanction is unfitted to meet.
	There is evidence to suggest that adult learners with low basic skills levels will be motivated to learn only if their individual circumstances are sensitively responded to in a learning environment that is encouraging and supportive. It must also be one that is responsive to individual needs, as compared to a policy whose major thrust comprises an "insensitive-to-individuals" sanction. We on these Benches want to protect those who are vulnerable, in particular those with learning difficulties and disabilities. As an example, how do the Government plan to identify potential trainees who may be dyslexic and who are unaware of it? That question was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
	Studies of the incidence of dyslexia in disadvantaged groups--for example, the homeless and prisoners--suggest that up to 30 per cent are dyslexic. NACRO tells me that it believes that withdrawing benefits would be counter-productive. Without some other means of income, it is inevitable that some previous offenders will turn to crime to make ends meet.
	Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we urge the Government to assess for possible dyslexia those claimants showing reluctance to attend, or leaving a course early.
	We welcome the fact that specialist training will be delivered for specific groups, including those with learning difficulties, through the pilots. It is crucial that personal advisers have the expertise to identify claimants who might benefit from such specialist training. It may take time and considerable expertise to make an appropriate assessment of the level of skills of somebody with a learning disability.
	For that reason, I was concerned to read on page 21 of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that providers delivering assessments should have achieved the Basic Skills Agency quality kitemark or,
	"will have expressed a commitment to achieve it within two years".
	Do the Government feel that that is acceptable? Decision-makers, as they are described on page 7, will have a crucial role. They must be properly trained. Inflexibility of thought and attitude will be extremely detrimental to people with special needs. Fair treatment is especially important when the removal of benefits is possible, particularly when removal of that benefit is being piloted in one area and not anywhere else.
	The NACAB has told me that there are not sufficient places available on good quality literacy training schemes. Can the Minister confirm that any pilot scheme will include some independent assessment of the availability and quality of training? Clearly this aspect of the programme has not been thought through. Do the Government believe that they have enough time to do this before the proposed introduction of the pilot on 17th September?
	The NACAB has also told me that numerous clients complain that they were not fully aware of benefit sanctions, even when the Employment Service says that it has sent such people a letter. There are frequent disputes about whether any information was given. We hope to see a commitment that the effect of the new regulations will be fully explained to people verbally, as well as in writing. This is also important for those with learning difficulties. It would not be sensible to send a notice in writing to someone who lacks literacy skills.
	Can the Minister confirm the time-scale of rolling out these local pilots into national arrangements? Do the Government have any plans, in the future, to apply these regulations to other benefits, or to other groups of claimants--such as people claiming family-related benefits or disability benefits? Bearing in mind the disquiet heard in the other place from all corners of the House, I look forward to hearing a great deal of reassurance from the noble Baroness.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend just said. He made a remarkably good and well-informed speech, and has obviously undertaken a lot of work on the subject. I see noble Baronesses on the opposite side of the Chamber who know a good deal about teaching. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he was disinterested in what "X" is in algebra. Judging from my experience, the difficulties of learners who have not learnt to read are rather different from the noble Earl's: they do not just amount to boredom at the idea that you must know what "X" means. I do not believe that that worries them very much. Their problem is one of lack of confidence, and lack of incentive. But, above all, it is lack of confidence and a feeling of fear.
	Very often these people have learnt how to read in primary school, but have lost the ability to do so at secondary school. That is extraordinary. It shows the deep psychological difficulty here that must be overcome. There is much evidence to show that just establishing a course and making people attend for fear of the imposition of a sanction will not do anything at all. It is absolutely right that the Government should be thinking of specialist courses, and of special ways of looking at this problem. As a nation, we must find out how to overcome the fear that people experience. So far, the only mechanism that has worked almost always is where an individual tries to teach someone else to read. That helps the person with the difficulty. It gives him or her the confidence to carry on, and it works. However, it is not easy to apply that approach across the board.
	Personally, I should like to see a movement of volunteers to carry out this form of teaching. I believe that that would work. However, it would be difficult to establish such a scheme and the problems involved are enormous; indeed, there is no question about that. I believe that the Government should think long and hard about this proposal. Fear is the worst element to introduce into the scene. I suspect that fear of loss of benefit would block the ability to progress in learning to read altogether. Of course, it might help some people, but I do not know. I cannot think of any professional who would agree with this approach.
	Similarly, I cannot think of any case with which I am familiar where someone who has experienced such difficulties would be helped by the introduction of an element of fear. I do not believe that this is the place for the stick. You must bring people to the point where they have to face up to their problem, and realise that their unemployability, or their lack of ability to be promoted, is due to this inability. But great care must be taken about how this proposal should be implemented. I do not believe that social security experts know very much about the problem: they just know that some people who are in receipt of benefit cannot read. That is a fact. But the people who do understand are those who have involved themselves in adult literacy teaching throughout this country--and, indeed, across Europe, where much is known about this difficulty. I hope that the Government will think carefully before they apply such sanctions to any extent. First, it would be counter productive; and, secondly, it would be extremely cruel.

Lord Layard: My Lords, there is an overwhelming case for what the Government propose. I put it in terms of four basic points. First, we have had a voluntary system for a very long time. For years it has been possible for unemployed people to receive free tuition in basic skills, while continuing to draw benefit. The problem is that very few have chosen to take the opportunity to do so. That is why two out of every five unemployed people are functionally illiterate. Surely we must be open minded about this problem. We must try to find a better approach to the problem. That is the argument for this experiment.
	Secondly, the proposal is only a pilot scheme to ascertain whether compulsion can make a difference. Moreover, the scheme will cover just two geographical areas. Surely the House would like to know whether this would make a better impact on the problem that we all agree exists. Thirdly, these pilots will be subject to a full evaluation by independent assessors, including an evaluation of how the sanctions aspect worked. How could we possibly know whether sanctions would make a difference unless we try them in this way? It seems extraordinary that the Social Security Advisory Committee should encourage us to try to imagine what sanctions would do without allowing us to put them in place. Social science--indeed, any kind of public policy--cannot be conducted on that basis.
	Finally, there is the question of the penalty. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wants a penalty of some sort, but it must be a smaller one to that proposed. I believe that that would prove to be extremely confusing. The benefit system and the sanction system are already too confusing and complicated. What would be the point of introducing yet another rather minor variant just for a gesture of some sort? The sanctions regime already allows for the protection of vulnerable people. Some 60,000 sanctions are implemented every year, and here we are considering a fairly small number. What sense would it make to create a new category when we have a system that we are more or less managing to implement on a very wide scale?
	If I take those four points together, it seems to me that the case for the Government's proposal is overwhelming. The voluntary system has failed, so we need to search for something better. We are proposing only a pilot scheme, which will be evaluated, and it should be kept simple. The last thing we want to do is to muddle the system with further complexities.
	I have one further, but more general, point to make. The noble Earl raised the general theory of human nature towards the end of his presentation. On the whole, that is not borne out by the evidence on unemployment, on how unemployed people behave and on how that affects unemployment. My colleagues all around the world have been researching this subject for many years. There is a very strong weight of evidence to show that the way unemployed people are treated has a profound effect on their behaviour. If the regime is tighter, people will respond; and that, in turn, affects the level of unemployment.
	If we were satisfied with the present level of unemployment that would be all right. But I believe that we should all start from the position that the present level of unemployment is intolerable; indeed, the figure is two or three times higher than that which applied in the fifties and sixties. We have to do very much better in that respect. There is one finding that emerges from all the evidence: the way we treat unemployed people will affect the level of unemployment. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some obvious examples of certain countries.
	On the one hand, 10 years ago some countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands had high unemployment--as high as anywhere else--but decided that they must change their approach and that they must simultaneously offer greater rights to the unemployed and more help but also impose a responsibility on the unemployed to take advantage of that help. That has had a most dramatic effect in those countries where unemployment has been more than halved with no increase in inflation.
	At the other extreme, countries such as France and Germany still have a system of rights to benefit with few responsibilities attaching to them. In those countries unemployment is still high. The research shows the impact of those policies. In Britain we are somewhat in between those two poles. Bit by bit we are getting away from a system where one just has rights to benefit towards one that is based on greater rights and more help but also greater responsibilities. That is important if we are to deal with the unemployment problem to the advantage of the unemployed as well as the rest of society. If I think of this as a debate ultimately about full employment, it is inconceivable that we can get back to full employment if we flinch from the kind of measures which are proposed only as a pilot to determine whether they will improve this terrible problem.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not think that the Government's measures to make work more attractive than benefit--which are many and various and are being developed--are more likely to help on the literacy question than the fear of losing benefit as they constitute a proper incentive as opposed to just the fear of losing something? I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. It increasingly amazes me to hear these comments coming from the Labour Benches but he is absolutely right. However, in the case of literacy, the measures to increase the attractiveness of work, as opposed to the fear of losing benefit, are much better because they do not contain the element of fear. Does the noble Lord agree with that?

Lord Layard: My Lords, one has to operate on all fronts. Making work pay is an extremely important part of the Government's policy. If I am asked to provide a rank order, as it were, my feeling is that offering positive help to people while they are unemployed to get them better trained, better placed and more work ready is more important than making work pay. However, all those factors are important.
	In the case we are discussing the national literacy and numeracy tests will be extraordinarily important in the development of the Government's basic skills policy and in whether employers at last become interested in whether their workers have basic skills problems. I take this opportunity to advertise those tests. One of the reasons employers have been so slack about the matter is that it is difficult for them to know whether someone has basic skills problems. People are good at hiding them. The factor which will most motivate people to deal with their basic skills problems and to face up to them and address them is if they think that by doing so they will obtain some kind of acknowledgement of their capabilities which they can show to an employer.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will not press his Motion.
	These draft regulations are essential to the Government's national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Layard. For far too long the scandal of adults not being able to read, write and do maths has gone unchecked. We shall address that. Improving the literacy and numeracy skills of 750,000 adults by 2004 is one of our top priorities.
	As your Lordships may be aware, around one in three of the unemployed have literacy and numeracy skills below that of the average 10 year-old. That is twice as many as in Sweden and is one of the worst records in the OECD. They are functionally illiterate. That means that they cannot often use Yellow Pages to get a plumber; they cannot read the departure screen at a railway station or use a street map. Therefore, they cannot even go into the job of last resort; that is, driving a minicab. They cannot read a tabloid newspaper or their children's school reports. They cannot make sense of instructions to work a machine or even follow the instructions on a bottle of medicine for their children. They are far more likely to be unemployed, depressed and not vote. Worse than that--I believe that this is one of the compelling reasons for intervening--is that in the case of children, particularly sons, who are brought up in a household where their parents do not read, not only the father's unemployability but also his illiteracy cascade down the generations. We know that to be true.

Earl Russell: My Lords, if I might save the Minister's time, we agree with the arguments that she makes; the question is, will the regulations do anything to improve the situation?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, unless one accepts, first, the scale of the problem and, secondly, the inadequacy of all of the approaches undertaken so far to address those problems on a voluntary basis, we cannot move on. The noble Earl seems to think that we can describe the problem, continue with existing policies, possibly adding the odd incentive, and all will be well. It is precisely because of the depth and the breadth of the problem and the way in which that deprivation is inherited that the Government cannot continue simply with a voluntary approach.
	We know who many of those suffering functional illiteracy may be. For example, English may not be their first language. Many may have finished formal education at primary school, partly because of their age. As the noble Baroness rightly said, others may have finished primary school, "lost it" at secondary school and entered a truanting cycle. As other noble Lords have said absolutely rightly, others may have hidden learning difficulties and may have spent 20 years in developing coping strategies to conceal them. They remain unemployed.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever--who seemed to suggest that while any jobs may exist which could be performed by someone without literacy or numeracy skills we did not have a moral case to press them into remedial literacy training--that, whatever the cause, 49 out of 50 jobs now remain closed to people with functional illiteracy. I suspect that in 15 to 20 years' time the figure will be 495 jobs out of 500. That is the degree of handicap to life chances we are bestowing on them and their children.
	We believe that the key to improving the prospects of such adults is to raise their skill levels so that they can find and keep secure work. We do not really know the most effective measures to raise the skill levels of the unemployed. We still do not know what works when dealing with people who have functional illiteracy, particularly when they have managed to conceal it for many years at the price of continuing unemployment. That is why we propose five pilots for jobseekers as part of our national strategy. I emphasise the word "pilots". They comprise mix and match schemes, running for six months, carefully evaluated to measure the impact of different approaches, not "one size fits all". Let me describe them as I am not sure that noble Lords fully appreciate them.
	Two of the five pilots concern new approaches to screening jobseekers for basic skills. One of the pilots will test the impact of early screening at 13 rather than 26 weeks' unemployment, while the other will try out a new screening tool designed by the Basic Skills Agency. After screening, those who have been identified as possibly having inadequate basic skills will be given an independent diagnostic assessment. That assessment will determine more clearly whether jobseekers have difficulties with literacy and numeracy, where their ability lies and what the most appropriate course is for each individual. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that there is no question of putting everyone on the same course. Different courses, some tailored specifically for clients on the pilots, will be provided to meet different levels of need.
	The other three pilots--as I say, two are about points of intervention and how one intervenes--will test out new approaches to motivating jobseekers to improve literacy and numeracy. A pilot in Wearside will provide financial incentives for jobseekers to undertake training--no sanctions, just financial incentives--a further £10 a week and a £100 bonus for completing the course. Another pilot in north Nottinghamshire will test the requirement that jobseekers with poor literacy and numeracy must undertake training or risk a temporary loss of benefits. The third pilot in Leeds will test the impact of both sanctions and incentives. Therefore the schemes comprise two involving interventions, one involving sanctions, one involving a benefits increase only and one involving a mix of both benefits and sanctions. A full range of possible ways forward is being explored in those five pilots because we say in all humility that we do not know what works best. What we do know is that the present strategy has failed generations of men and women and their children. Therefore we are going for mix-and-match ranges.
	We do not need new legislation to pilot incentives. But it is necessary for us to seek powers to test sanctions in this context. That is why we bring forward the draft regulations today. Subject to your Lordships' agreement, these regulations would enable the Government to establish pilot schemes imposing sanctions on people claiming JSA if, without good cause, they refused or failed to take part in literacy and numeracy skills training. The two pilot schemes involving sanctions out of the five would involve jobseekers aged between 25 and 49 who had been claiming benefit for at least six months and had been assessed as needing training. The sanction would be for two weeks in the first instance. The sanction for a further failure to participate within 12 months could be four weeks' loss of JSA.
	We fully recognise the need to be sensitive to the complex problems that everyone identifies are carried by those who are disadvantaged by their illiteracy. It has been a particular concern of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is reflected in its report on our proposals. We accept that there will be jobseekers for whom basic skills training would be inappropriate. We have incorporated an additional safeguard into the draft regulations that are now before your Lordships' House. We have made clear that whether or not a claimant will be required to undertake training will be subject to discretion.
	There will be, therefore, no question of compelling all jobseekers with low levels of literacy or numeracy to undertake courses whatever their individual circumstances. Such a course must be appropriate for the individual before he or she can be required to undertake it or risk losing benefit. For example, jobseekers for whom English is not their first language and who need additional support in English may be referred to language support where appropriate.
	The Social Security Advisory Committee also expressed concern, rightly--it has been aired today--for people with mental health problems, learning difficulties and dyslexia. Claimants with those disabilities are more likely to be receiving incapacity benefit or other disability allowances than JSA. The pilot schemes apply only to those on JSA who are presumed, therefore, to be available for work but who are effectively unemployable because of their illiteracy. Where a JSA claimant has such a disability--I share your Lordships' concerns for people with mental health problems, learning difficulties and dyslexia--personal advisers have clear guidance to refer them to a disability employment adviser. Such advisers are specially trained to help people with disabilities and give them appropriate support and guidance. Those clients would not be required to undertake unsuitable training or risk losing benefit. Indeed, the very process of screening may help to bring forward people who have so far concealed some of those disabilities and ensure that they receive the benefit they should have had for many years but have failed to do so. For example, instead of JSA they may be entitled to claim severe disability allowance. They may be entitled to claim IS with a disability premium.
	If a jobseeker begins a literacy/numeracy skills course and it becomes apparent that the course is not suitable--perhaps he or she is dyslexic--it will be possible to exercise discretion and stop attendance on the course. In such a context, much depends on the sensitivity, and thus the training, of the personal advisers. They not only have the full six weeks Employment Service training--it covers equal opportunities, interviewing skills and preventing and calming difficult situations--in addition, the Employment Service is preparing special training packages for each pilot to cover how to judge the exercise of discretion. Other safeguards will include good cause for failing to attend appropriate training, illness, domestic emergency or caring responsibilities. In that case, no one will be sanctioned and lose benefit. That brings me to the question of sanctions.
	I believe that we are able to meet virtually every point raised by the Social Security Advisory Committee apart from the point on sanctions. I wish to turn to that now. Jobseekers will have the opportunity to explain their actions before any sanction decision is taken. They will be given that information verbally and in writing, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said. They will have the opportunity to bring with them a friend, advocate or mentor. That might be particularly important if there is a language difficulty--for example, because English is not their first or main language. The decision will be taken by an impartial decision-maker; and in the meantime benefit will continue to be paid in full. If a decision-maker decides that a sanction is justified, the jobseeker will have the usual right of appeal to an independent Social Security Appeal Tribunal. Clearly, if someone has had his benefit removed, his benefit does not continue while he appeals, as applies with regard to any other social security benefit. If someone has had his incapacity benefit removed and he appeals, his benefit stops until the appeal is heard. If the appeal succeeds, the benefit is reinstated. The proposals are in line with all the other sanctions and appeal systems of support that the social security system offers. If the tribunal finds in a person's favour, then arrears of benefit will be paid.
	Where no such special circumstances exist and refusal to undertake training results in a sanction, JSA will be stopped for two weeks in the first instance. Even then, at any point the jobseeker could regain the allowance if he changed his mind and took in basic skills training. I give way.

Earl Russell: My Lords, for clarification, is the Minister saying that JSA will be stopped in whole or in part?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the sanction applies to the individual claimant, not to the claimant's family where they are eligible for hardship payment. Jobseekers can claim payments of JSA at a reduced rate if they can show that they or a family member would otherwise suffer hardship. In other words, the rules are consistent with the rest of the social security system. Hardship payments will provide immediate protection for vulnerable groups such as jobseekers with dependent children. Thus, for instance, a couple with three dependent children who would normally receive some £277 in total benefits would receive a hardship payment of £256. If a family member were pregnant or seriously ill, they would receive £266. That is a sanction of £11 on an income of £277.
	I do not want to be "picky", but as the noble Earl's Motion stands, the removal of 10 per cent of sanctioned benefit would fall on the entire benefit. It would make the person far worse off than through the sanction that we propose of 20 or 40 per cent on the individual claimant's benefit.
	I do not think that there is any noble Lord in the House who would not prefer a voluntary to a compulsory approach. We do not propose these pilot schemes lightly. But if we know that the voluntary approach has failed and that people are saying, "I refuse to engage in any training which will remedy my illiteracy and, therefore, I insist on remaining effectively unemployable and ensure that my children remain unemployable in the future", I think that the state has a case for saying that this is part of the ongoing rights and responsibilities debate outlined by my noble friend Lord Layard.
	The voluntary approach has not worked. Free learning, free support and free outreach work have been available for many years to adults who wish to improve their basic skills. Yet significant numbers--probably the majority--have failed to take advantage of those opportunities. We have to engage in that debate. Sadly, in handling some of the New Deals--for example, involving lone parents, disabled people and the like--I found that when the original letters went out with interview times attached and people believed that those interviews were compulsory, about 95 per cent of people turned up. When we did not attach interview appointment times--the letter simply offered an invitation to an interview--the attendance rate fell to well below half that figure. Although they were not compulsory, when people believed that those interviews were compulsory, it worked. When the situation was voluntary, it did not.
	Training makes all the difference. I recall one lone parent, a woman aged 29, who had never held a job and had learning difficulties. Through the New Deal for Lone Parents, she undertook a health and hygiene course which enabled her to gain a job for the first time in a butcher's shop. She had learning difficulties. She probably should not have been on JSA but she was; and we helped her through.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, queried the Government's commitment to what he called the extreme rationality. He believes that if people refuse to learn to read that shows that they are irrational; that they cannot be expected, therefore, to respond rationally to whatever the Government may do. The Government have to assume that people are moral adults. It would be the height of arrogance for us to assume that they were not. I suggest that his policy is one of despair. If the Government do not respond with a rational response we are in the Kafka-esque territory of terrifying arbitrariness; and I would not wish noble Lords to engage in that territory. How will the noble Earl ever know whether sanctions will work until those sanctions are applied in two out of the five pilots? How can we know when we do not have the knowledge or information on which to base those assertions?
	That is why we are proposing pilots for both voluntary and mandatory regimes. Of course we will evaluate the pilots, with independent evaluators carrying out qualitative and quantitative work on the results. We will make sure that we track people who are sanctioned because they refuse training without good cause. While under sanction, claimants would normally tend to be tracked by attending fortnightly interviews. Those who choose to leave the JSA system for whatever reason, possibly to go into the black economy, could not normally be tracked by the Employment Service. The evaluators will include a sample of them to be followed up, but only if they have given their consent to taking part.
	In other words, through the evaluation exercise we shall seek to establish why people have withdrawn from the JSA system rather than undergo training. That will include finding out about moving into the black economy in so far as we can discover that information, finding out about debt in so far as we can judge how much extra debt has been incurred as a result, and all the other considerations. We need the fullest possible knowledge to ensure that we can deliver our programme in ways that work with the grain of people's consent. If we find that sanctions fail to make a difference, I shall not pursue the policy, but we cannot know that yet. We know that the voluntary approach has failed, so we have to give our best efforts to finding out whether the compulsory approach, as proposed in two of the five pilots, will work.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, pressed me on whether the regulations were compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. No individual will fall within a pilot unless he or she has been receiving jobseeker's allowance for at least six months and has been unsuccessful in finding employment for at least that long. The mandatory training will apply only if the individual wishes to continue claiming JSA and if the training is considered appropriate.
	The underlying purpose of the pilots is to improve opportunities for employment. They are not intended to penalise people merely for lacking basic skills. However, since receiving the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, we have added an extra safeguard to the draft regulations. Paragraph 2(d) of Regulation 3 specifically provides that the Secretary of State must consider that literacy and numeracy skills training would be appropriate for the person concerned before requiring that individual to participate in training. That will ensure that there is no direct or indirect discrimination contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We all recognise that there is an appalling waste of life chances while adults remain functionally illiterate and pass that illiteracy on to their children. Our staff must be well trained and supportive; I believe that they will be. The training courses must be appropriate and supportive; I believe that they will be. Good cause must be properly available, as it will be. Hardship payments will continue to be properly available, as they should be.
	We do not know what works best, hence these five six-month pilots. They are each different. We shall properly evaluate that mix and match approach. If we miss this opportunity to equip people with the skills they need to hold down the jobs they need, we will duck the issue that the electorate sent us here to address.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness a number of other specific questions, particularly about the Basic Skills Agency quality kitemark. I should be grateful if she would write to me about those important points and place a copy of her letter in the Library.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the House for their response to the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for their support on a number of points.
	I am extremely interested in what the Minister said about tracking. That is the heart of the argument, because until we have evidence, what we say on both sides of the argument remains hypothesis. I am unable to judge the force of what the Minister says simply on the few words for which she had time in the Chamber. If she were prepared to write to me in greater detail on the subject, I should be extremely grateful and extremely interested, because that is the issue on which all the arguments depend.
	I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what she said about training and about the ability to bring a friend or mentor to an interview. In cases of mental handicap or language difference in particular, that could be vital. I appreciate her comments.
	On the other hand, to say simply that the voluntary system has failed is not an answer. When one system has failed, it does not necessarily follow either that another will succeed or that the old one would not succeed if it were tried a little better. Both those questions remain open in my mind.
	The House should be honoured by the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, to contribute to our debates. He is a scholar of great standing and I was tempted to greet his intervention in the debate with the classic first night cry of "Author!". As well as being a great scholar, he is also a highly successful teacher. I do not just refer to him as one of the 364 economists--and the first among them--but I speak of my own knowledge of his success in teaching me to play the Eton wall game, for which I remain eternally grateful.
	However, I regret to say that on this occasion I found the noble Lord a good deal less effective as a teacher than I found him in that context. He said that we already have a voluntary system. We do. I think that he will agree that for a long time--though perhaps slightly less so recently--it has been somewhat of a Cinderella in our education system. It has also not succeeded in overcoming the sense of shame felt by adult illiterates. We should have thought more about that, because it is one of the biggest obstacles to getting adult illiterates to seek help. Depriving them of their benefit will not diminish any sense of shame they may feel. Until we overcome that, I do not see how there is going to be any helping them.
	The recognition that illiteracy is a common condition is as important as anything for getting people to seek help. I do not think that the proposals will do that. I think that they will increase the determination to conceal the condition, because admitting to it will carry penalties.
	The noble Lord, Lord Layard, says that the pilots will show what is the best response. I wish I could be persuaded of that, but I am afraid that I agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee that the pilots will show what is effective only if we can classify their results according to the reasons for refusing the course. Different remedies are likely to be effective for different reasons.
	The Social Security Advisory Committee wants to know the problem before prescribing the solution. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that I cannot find that to be absurd, or even at all extraordinary.
	The noble Lord also argued that people in the labour market respond to a tighter regime. I accept that, but they respond in more than one way. When Louise Casey, now the homelessness tsar, worked for Shelter, she used to travel round Soho at night and found a great many people who had responded to a harsh regime in ways that would not satisfy the reforming aims of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and found no place in any recorded statistics.
	The noble Lord referred to a reduction in unemployment, but all that he can really talk about is a reduction in recorded unemployment. As one academic to another, I recognise that we are prisoners of our documents and tied to our sources.

Lord Layard: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we also have figures for employment, which come from a different source--from employers? Those figures show that the employment rates are the big success story, as well as the unemployment rates.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been following the statistics for the growing number in the population classified as economically inactive. A great many of them may be active in ways of which we know nothing, and of which they wish us to know nothing. I also do not know whether he has read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on the black economy, which has shown that a great many people are economically active whom no record shows to be so. We know that there are large numbers of people in the economy who are drugdealers, pimps, common crooks, burglars, thieves and all the rest. They do not appear in any statistic of employment. I do not believe that either the noble Lord or I can be confident in attempting to quantify that.
	Therefore, when the noble Lords talks about response and reducing unemployment, he can talk only about recorded unemployment. We do not know which of those responses is more common.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, because this benefit relates only to JSA and thus we are dealing with recorded employment, the problem does not arise?

Earl Russell: My Lords, but the problem may well arise in relation to what the people do after they have been sanctioned. That is the focus to which I have at all times referred. When people are deprived of their JSA, some will draw that benefit again later and some will disappear. It is what is done by the ones who disappear that interests both the Social Security Advisory Committee and me. That is the real question. It is capable of answer, but not from the present evidence.
	Throughout this debate, when we have talked about compunction and changing people's hearts and minds, I have been reminded of the debate which has gone on for centuries about compulsory church attendance and the creation of faith. I have heard the Minister defending work-focused interviews in words which come almost exactly from St Augustine of Hippo. St Augustine was very often right, but this is one subject on which I believe that he was not.
	The lesson of history is that compulsion in religion has taken at least 40 years to be effective, wherever it has been introduced. In fact, it is effective only when it is applied to people who are subjected to it from a young age. The Jesuits' rule of the first seven years is correct. But as people are not compelled actively to seek work at the age of seven, we cannot make that apply in this case.
	I am sorry that the Minister finds it so difficult to accept the infinite variousness of the human race. But, as Carlyle replied to the lady who said, "I accept the universe", "Gad, ma'am, you'd better!". I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security (Literacy etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Minimum Standards in Asylum Procedures: EUC Report

Lord Hope of Craighead: rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Minimum Standards in Asylum Procedures (11th Report, Session 2000-2001, HL Paper 59).

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, earlier today, your Lordships had the pleasure of listening to an excellent debate on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, to take note of a report by the European Union Committee on a Community immigration policy. It is now my privilege, at this rather late hour, to initiate a further debate on a report from the European Union Committee. The topic this time is a proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards in asylum procedures.
	This proposal may be seen as perhaps one further step along the road towards a Community asylum policy. Once again, we are concerned with one of the most basic of all the problems faced by the EU; that is, how to deal with people from other countries who, often for very good reasons, wish to enter and live in the Community.
	But your Lordships will appreciate that the context for this debate has shifted from that of the previous one--from the generality to the particular. Its subject matter can be identified, quite precisely, by two things. First, this time we are concerned with asylum seekers or refugees and with the obligations which all member states owe to those who seek asylum under the Geneva Convention of 1951 relating to the status of refugees.
	Secondly, we are concerned with a proposal which is limited in its scope to minimum standards in matters of procedure. The procedures with which we are concerned are those for granting or withdrawing refugee status from those who seek asylum in a member state of the EU. As your Lordships know, obligations and procedures are matters that lawyers like to think about. Therefore, it is no accident that this report is the product of an inquiry which was conducted on the Select Committee's behalf by Sub-Committee E, whose remit is the law and institutions of the EU.
	Nevertheless, although this is a discussion about obligations and procedures, discussions about procedures relating to the status of refugees and asylum seekers cannot be said to lack human interest. The principle on which the convention is based--its very cornerstone, indeed--is that no refugees should be returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
	It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in that position--people who are forced by circumstances legitimately to seek protection in the Community because of the risks that they face in their own country--may depend in the end on rules of procedure. Their applications for asylum must be examined swiftly to prevent abuse and remove uncertainty, and those who are in need of protection need to be identified correctly and speedily. Therefore, effective access to procedures throughout the decision-making process is an essential safeguard for the individual.
	But the member states, too, have an obvious interest in the efficiency, speed and accuracy of those procedures. After all, the purpose of the convention is to provide protection to those who are genuinely in need of it. Abuse of the system must, of course, be weeded out. It is enormously wasteful in time, money and resources. It gives the system as a whole a bad name.
	By way of introduction to this brief debate, I should like to give a short description of the background to the proposal for Community legislation on minimum standards of procedure, and then, for the Minister's benefit, to draw attention to the more important points which the committee's report has identified.
	The origins of the proposal can be traced back to the meeting of the European Council which took place in October 1999 at Tampere. At that meeting, the Council agreed to work towards a common European asylum system. The process which it envisaged involved two stages. The target for the longer term was to be a uniform asylum procedure and a unified status for all those granted asylum in any member state of the EU. Five distinct topics were included for attention in the shorter term. The aim was to establish minimum standards on asylum matters in all member states with a view to their harmonisation in the longer term.
	As I said, we are concerned here with the proposal for minimum standards of procedure. As it happens, shortly before Parliament was dissolved in May, the Commission published another draft directive on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. The aim of that directive is to harmonise the legal position of and assistance given to asylum seekers while member states are considering their applications. A high priority is to be attached to it by the Belgian presidency. A brief investigation into this matter is currently being conducted by Sub-Committee E.
	That background of activity brings me to the first point in our report. The first of the five topics to emerge for consideration was this one dealing with procedure. Not surprisingly, some of our witnesses expressed the view that it would have been better if some of the more fundamental points, such as the approximation of the rules relating to the recognition and content of refugee status, had been addressed first. There was perhaps a hint here that the committee would have been better to wait for the other proposals before becoming involved in this one concerning procedure.
	On the whole, we were not much impressed by that criticism. Although there is plainly something to be said for the view that matters of substance should be sorted out before agreement is reached on procedure, the proposals about procedure raise distinct issues which can properly be subjected to scrutiny at this stage. As events have turned out, it appears that draft proposals on the other items will not be far behind. That on the reception conditions is already with us, as I have said, and is to be accorded a high priority. So perhaps the most important point to bear in mind is the fact that we are dealing in this debate with only part of a more substantial package, the overall aim of which is to establish those common minimal standards before embarking on the aim for the longer term of establishing a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for all those who are granted asylum anywhere in the EU.
	That brings me to another general conceptual point, which was raised by some of our witnesses. It relates to the concept of minimum standards. The risk to which they drew our attention was that of setting the minimum standards by reference to the lowest common denominator. We agree that care must be taken not to fall into that trap. The aim, as we see it, should be to raise standards wherever possible. That applies to the procedural standards to which we adhere in this country just as much as it does to those in other member states. We believe that the United Kingdom should be setting the highest standards, not seeking to shelter among those whose standards are low.
	I turn to some points of detail. The directive contains 46 articles and two annexes and it covers the entire field of asylum procedure. Inevitably, our report is full of much more detail than can conveniently be covered in this debate. I shall concentrate on just a few points that we have identified. If the Minister wishes to comment on them, the committee would welcome that.
	The first point involves the question of rights to translation and interpretation and access to legal advice. Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the directive contain a comprehensive package of guarantees that are designed to ensure that, with respect to all the procedures that are provided for in the directive, all applicants for asylum understand fully their rights and obligations, are fully informed of the decision and of the possibility for it to be reviewed, are given the opportunity of a personal interview and have access to legal advice at all stages of the procedure. Those include quite extensive rights to translation and interpretation.
	In the ideal world, of course, all asylum seekers would have access to an interpreter who could speak to them at every opportunity in their own language and to the provision of translations into their own language of all the relevant literature. At first sight, the article seems to subscribe to that principle because it states that they must be informed of the procedure to be followed and of their rights and obligations during the procedure in a language that they understand. We recognise that, taken literally, that would run the risk of placing an impossible burden on member states, in view of the great number of languages and of dialects within languages that might have to be covered by the rule. So we accept that there is room for some modification in the extent to which translation facilities must be made available, provided that the essential point is recognised that all applicants, from whatever country they may come, must be made fully aware of their rights and the way in which they may exercise them.
	Nevertheless, as we put it in our report, the determining authority has to make sure that the individual concerned can exercise his or her rights under the convention. That is particularly important at the outset and again at the stage when a decision has been taken on the application, so that applicants are fully aware of its import and implications. That is an area of domestic asylum practice in which increased investment may well be needed for the provision and training of more interpreters and the translation into more languages of the relevant documents.
	Related to that problem is that of access to advice. It was suggested to us that a large number of asylum applications are currently being refused in this country because the statement of evidence form, which must be filled in in English, has not been completed correctly or in time. Where that occurs it leads to rejection of the application on non-compliance grounds and to an appeal, which may in its turn be refused on the same grounds. If that is true, it is a matter for very real concern because it undermines the basic principle of the convention that no refugee should be returned to a country in which his or her life or freedom would be at risk. That is a case of bad decisions resulting from defective procedure. There are also strong objections to this situation on practical grounds. The appeal process is being clogged by cases that should not be there. Where judicial review is resorted to, it brings with it further delay and expense. The result of a successful application for judicial review is a decision that takes far longer and costs far more. Every effort should therefore be directed towards achieving fair and sustainable decisions on the merits at first instance, which are based on an accurate presentation of the facts. The prompt giving of legal assistance in the handling of applications with that in view is likely to contribute to the efficiency of the whole process.
	My next point relates to the question of the application of "safe country" concepts. As we pointed out in our report, substantial criticisms were made by our witnesses about the use and definition of the concepts that are embraced by the phrases, "safe third country" and "safe country of origin". Article 18, in brief, provides that a member state can dismiss an application for asylum as inadmissible if a third country with which, for example, an applicant has a connection or close links can be considered as a safe third country for him. Article 27 permits the use of accelerated procedures to process applications that are suspected of being manifestly unfounded. Included in that category are those in which the applicant is from what is described as a safe country of origin.
	That area of asylum practice requires very careful scrutiny. The problem lies in the principles that the directive lays down for the designation of countries as safe and in the temptation for member states to adopt an automatic, list-based approach to those applications. It may well be said that the use of safe country concepts is likely to promote efficiency and to contribute to speedy decision making. However, there is a risk that resort to lists will replace the consideration of individual cases on their own facts and that the lists themselves will prove to be erroneous and unreliable. Our conclusions are that it is essential that those concepts should not be allowed to create presumptions that are irrebuttable, that there should be strong independent supervision of the designation of countries as safe countries and of their inclusion in any lists and that their use in practice should be monitored. The annexes in which the principles for designation are set out appear to be incomplete and in other respects unsatisfactory. That whole area is one to which we urge the Government to give careful consideration during the discussion of the draft directive.
	There is one other point of detail with which I want to deal before concluding. It relates to the special case of unaccompanied minors, to whom a legal guardian or adviser is to be appointed to assist and represent them. There are, however, other classes of applicants for whom special provision on the same lines might be made. We heard evidence on that matter from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. It drew our attention to the special needs of the survivors of torture and the victims of violence of other kinds, such as women who have been abused sexually and those who are disturbed psychologically. It is, we think, an open question as to whether a separate article is needed in their case, although those who are disturbed psychologically may be as much in need of a guardian or adviser as children are. However, we would welcome an assurance from the Government that the position of those other special cases will be recognised in some way. What is needed is the provision of safeguards to reduce the risk of prejudice against those who cannot adequately represent their own interests because they have been so acutely traumatised by their experiences that they are incapable of understanding what is going on or of describing the situation in which they find themselves.
	There is no time for me to go into further details but my opening remarks would not be complete without my paying tribute to all those who assisted us in our inquiry by providing us with written and oral evidence. The commission consulted several of the relevant organisations before drafting its proposal. We have continued the same process. In matters of procedure there is, after all, no substitute for practical experience. One of the strengths of our committee procedure is the extent to which it enables us to draw upon the knowledge and experience of those who are, so to speak, in the front line. That is a most important aspect of the process of parliamentary scrutiny. It engages with civil society and it contributes greatly to the respect in which the work of Select Committees is held throughout the EU.
	I pay tribute also to all the members of my sub-committee and to our legal adviser, Dr Christopher Kerse. Their contribution to the inquiry and to the text of this report, from start to finish, has been immense. It has been my privilege to present the report to noble Lords on their behalf. However, the intellectual effort that has gone into it has been almost entirely theirs, not mine. I owe them all a very real debt of gratitude.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Minimum Standards in Asylum Procedures [11th Report, Session 2000-2001, HL Paper 59].--(Lord Hope of Craighead.)

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we all want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and his fellow committee members for having produced a very impressive report. As he said, while our debate earlier this evening was very general in nature, this is extremely precise.
	But even if it is a report which dwells on precision, it again illustrates--and I do not apologise for making the point which I made in an earlier debate--the quality of work which is undertaken by our Select Committees in this House and their importance to the whole democratic and parliamentary system in the United Kingdom, something which we should not underrate in the deliberations which lie ahead in the coming year.
	Much that the noble and learned Lord said towards the end of his remarks, to me as a layman, seemed particularly important. In fact, as a layman, I feel rather inhibited in speaking in this debate because there was so much legal expertise at the disposal of the committee.
	But for a great deal of my life, I have worked in humanitarian agencies. I am quite certain that what the noble and learned Lord said about the need for special measures for those who have encountered particularly traumatic experiences, be they torture or of some other nature, is a point which the Minister should take seriously. I know that he will take it seriously and it will be good to hear his comments. Indeed, the needs of children also should be emphasised.
	I underline also my profound unease with the whole concept of "safe country". It seems to me that the administrative rationale for having such a notion in the heart of the administration policy here may be overwhelming. But asylum is about an individual in an individual situation. We must never lose sight of that. Therefore, it seems to me that we must be very careful that, with this notion of "safe country", we are not undermining the responsibility to look at each case individually on its own merits. That is what we should be doing with all the powers at our disposal.
	That brings me to the main point that I want to make. I was looking--and it is very helpfully reproduced in the report--at the proposal for the directive. Paragraph (1) sums it up well. It states that,
	"A common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the European Union's objective of establishing progressively an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Community".
	That seems to be a civilised priority which makes the European Union a body well worth belonging to.
	But the point that I want to make is that, however precise the formal regulations which we are considering this evening are or should be, I do not believe that one can separate them from the experiences of those who are going through those procedures. It is unhealthy to look at those two in isolation because I do not believe that the one can be separated from the other.
	I want to pay a very real tribute to the Minister for whom I have an extremely high regard. I have had the good fortune of knowing him for many years and he is one of those who I know brings a freshness and candour and desire to be free of cant which is very important in any Minister. Because I have a high regard for him, I hope that he will take a few moments in the days ahead to look back at some of the things that he has said from the Dispatch Box since taking on his responsibilities in this House.
	Because I admire the Minister, I am going to say absolutely directly that I have not been reassured by what he has said about the voucher scheme. He responded to anxieties by saying, "Well, we are not ready to publish the survey yet and that is why it has not been published". But in the middle of this issue, there are asylum seekers who have been through hell. They are here because of their persecution. This is not a light matter. We should do everything within our power to ensure that such people are receiving the protection and enjoying the freedom which is spelt out in that paragraph to which I have just referred.
	Many of us close to the issue know that the voucher scheme is a humiliation and a ground for insecurity. It is a system which involves stigma. It identifies those people as something separate. In areas of pressure and instability in our own society, it attracts attention and makes them feel insecure in the midst of all that is going on around them. It really is not good enough to say that the survey is not ready yet and, therefore, it has not been published. The fact is that that is urgent and should receive top priority, if the spirit of what is spelt out in this proposal from the Commission is to be observed.
	Therefore, I make no apology for raising this issue in the context of this debate again. Because I have respect for the Minister, I hope that he will be able to say something reassuring this evening.
	There are two other points that I should like to mention briefly. The first is the issue that has been raised by the Refugee Children's Consortium concerning the detention of children in the processes for which we are responsible. I share the view of that consortium that there is no place for the detention of children, however we administer our procedures in this context. I do not believe that such action can be reconciled with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, nor with the Government's own White Paper--Fairer, Faster, Firmer. Again, I want to hear the Minister's reassurances on the Government's future policy in that respect.
	My concluding observation is to repeat something that I said in the earlier debate because I believe that it applies to this one. Asylum is not a British problem, challenge or issue; it is an international problem, challenge or issue, hence the proposals by the European Union. Nor is it just a European Union matter; it goes wider. In my work in the Council of Europe as chair of the Refugee Committee in the parliamentary assembly, I am constantly reminded that every time the European Union believes it is buttoning up its asylum policies neatly and effectively to meet its own needs and circumstances, inevitably there are implications for European countries that are not members of the union.
	It is simply irresponsible to develop a policy in the context of the European Union alone and not to share the responsibility with the wider European community. We should reach out towards policies that will be effective in a wider European context and not, because of our determination to limit the number of cases that we deal with ourselves, place unfair burdens on others who often have fewer resources than those at our disposal.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this matter and to say that there is a determination on the part of the Government to work closely, not only with the European Union, but also with the wider European community outside the Union and indeed with the international community.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and his colleagues for their report on the important matter of cross-European minimum standards in asylum procedures. There are few occasions on which the well-being of humanity is not improved by groups of people being willing to work together. In principle, these Benches welcome the report's testimony to European co-operation over the issue of asylum procedures, which is of such major concern to us all. We also welcome the report's insistence that that co-operation should be within the well established and common international obligations within which pattern Europe must work, if it is to work at all. We welcome the Government's willingness to consider such European co-operation.
	However, a common policy of the whole EU cannot come into realistic and practical existence without the ability of all member states to adopt and to implement such a policy. Many of us have laboured long to improve the asylum policy and procedures of the present Government, and much time has been given to the matter in your Lordships' House sometimes--I have to say to the new Minister--with disappointing results.
	I, for one, welcome any sign of the Government's willingness to make asylum and immigration procedures better. I know that I am not alone among your Lordships in feeling that all is not yet well in the state of Britain in this regard. Let me give your Lordships an example of the consequences of the difficulties of the present system. Staying in one of our Church of England vicarages in Everton at present are 10 Kurdish-speaking asylum seekers. Before coming to the vicarage five of them were on hunger strike. Why? Because the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) had housed them in two tower blocks owned by a private landlord.
	Six hundred to 700 young men, mostly from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, are crowded into those blocks. The clergy in Everton tell me that there are allegations of the shutting down of lifts, the withholding of post, uncontrolled access to all the flats by the staff, threats of deportations or influence over asylum applications if complaints are made, and even threats of physical attack. I do not know the truth of any of that, but the local clergy have been sufficiently concerned to give house room to those on hunger strike. The clergy are also relieved to know that an investigation is taking place, and a report should be with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, within a short time. The clergy are rather less impressed with NASS's immediate response which was to tell the 10 people seeking refuge in the vicarage that they must now go to Sunderland or lose all the privileges of the support system.
	I would not want or expect the Minister to comment on that particular case, but it happens to be just one case that has come across my desk as chairman of the Church of England's Board of Social Responsibility and it is simply an indication of what can and sometimes does go wrong with the present system. There are too many stories of the corruption of the voucher system, of isolation and despair, of the waste of resources as specialised support agencies such as interpreters try to keep track of asylum seekers scattered around the country in a system that could almost appear calculated to encourage people to disappear. The Churches hear these stories all the time, because those whom the system fails tend to show up in our vicarages, our drop-in centres, our night shelters, and our prison chaplaincies.
	With such an inadequate UK system, we must, of course, encourage Her Majesty's Government to work for common European standards. The results can only be an improvement. But we must also recognise that such policies will be of no value if they lead to a lowest denominator approach to our policies, especially those on asylum issues. As the report notes, any notion that minimum standards are to be taken in this sense should be firmly rejected. We would therefore like to see a situation in which minimum standards are, at the very least, the highest standards currently operating in the countries adopting the directive.
	As member states try to swiftly work out a common policy, there may be a temptation to accept minimum standards in the sense of lower common denominator standards. Certainly an integrated European policy which results in quicker decision making will indeed benefit asylum seekers and those administering asylum policy, but only if the decisions are fair and accurate. There is little to be gained from quicker decisions that result in a greater number of appeals and more injustice. Nor should we underestimate the difficulty of ensuring that that does not happen.
	There are several reasons why haste will be sought: first, the political pressure on most EU governments in countries, including ours, in which asylum applications have been on the increase; secondly, the care needed to ensure that any framework is drafted with proper regard to international law--a process likely to be lengthier than not; thirdly, the concern, flagged up by the committee, that the proposed directive might give credence to concepts whose legitimacy in international law might be questioned. Such concepts include "manifestly unfounded claims", "safe country of origin", or even "safe third country".
	It therefore seems that, although there are reasons to welcome this directive, it should be welcomed with caution. We cannot welcome it as an instant answer to a pressing problem, but we should and must welcome it as the first step towards initiating further debate which should lead to higher uniform standards for asylum seekers. I trust that your Lordships' House will be actively involved in the future consideration of the directive and its implications, to the benefit of both asylum seekers and the countries in which they wish to settle.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in the gap. I do so because my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who had intended to speak in this debate, is unable to do so because of other commitments. I also wish to speak because no other speaker in today's debate, or no one else present in the chamber this evening, was a member of Sub-Committee E.
	I should like to pay particular tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, because this is the last report to emanate from Sub-Committee E before he retired from the chair, as he did at the general election. As the chair of Sub-Committee E, he was notably calm, effective, hard working and clear minded. The only respect in which I disagree with him is that the intellectual effort was ours rather than his. That is certainly not true.
	I should like to refer briefly to two of the points that he mentioned. The first is the importance of ensuring that the directive does not simply adopt the standards of the lowest common denominator. One part of the directive that would raise standards in the United Kingdom relates to improved provision for translation and interpretation. I was astonished to discover that applicants have to complete the statement of evidence form in English without being entitled to any form of help from someone who can speak to them in their own language. That is a matter of particular concern, because a failure to return the form within a short time results in the automatic rejection of an asylum seeker's initial application.
	By contrast, one aspect in which the directive is inadequate is in its treatment of the concept of the safe country of origin and the safe third country. Having previously been open minded, I was persuaded by the evidence that those concepts are unsatisfactory and cannot be relied on to provide, as the directive seeks to, automatic or nearly automatic answers, dispensing with the need to investigate the actual facts of the case. I therefore believe that there is much work to be done on the directive before it can be adopted as a wholly satisfactory common standard of procedure for the member states of the European Union.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the report was evidence of the quality of work undertaken by your Lordships' Select Committees and I heartily agree. I also agree with what my noble friend said about the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in steering the excellent report to completion and bringing it before your Lordships' House today.
	There is a political commitment to develop an EU asylum and immigration policy and we know that that is shared by the Government. It is obvious that if standards and procedures vary widely between one country and another within the 15 member states, there will be distortions in the flow of migrants to and within the Union. Indeed, there is already, for a variety of reasons; for example, relative accessibility of different countries and the linguistic affinity of asylum applicants with particular countries.
	The objective set by the European Council at Tampere in 1999 was to agree on the minimum standards to be adopted in the short term, which we have before us now, leading to a common asylum procedure and a status for asylum throughout the EU at some unspecified future date. Today we are considering the draft directive on minimum standards in asylum procedures and we will confine our attention to that matter. However, the debate has ranged more widely into issues related to asylum.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained, some witnesses believed that the procedures should not have been considered before more fundamental issues such as the rules on recognition and content of refugee status had been examined. The committee stated that there is a strong argument against limiting the directive strictly to the determination of the convention claims. Member states have obligations under the ECHR, whether the directive mentions it or not. As human rights issues arise in the course of every asylum application, the directive should spell out the human rights issues of a wider nature which are relevant.
	However, the committee recognised that problems could arise if the directive were to be extended to other kinds of protection which might be available under, say, the convention against torture because the treaty basis for such an extension would have to be verified. The committee stated that the member states' existing law and practice on complementary protection varies widely.
	I would have thought that that was a good reason for saying that the matter should have been considered under the directive. Surely it is as necessary to eliminate arbitrary differences in the treatment of applicants for complementary protection as it is to eliminate the differences in respect of applicants under the convention itself. Surely what the European Union needs is a uniform system of protection, not a piecemeal uniformity for each of the different forms of protection.
	The European Commission indicated that draft legislation on all the elements of Article 63.1 will be presented this summer, so perhaps the Minister will confirm that we shall have an opportunity of considering these issues before the directive becomes law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, told us that one of the other elements is already in place in that a further draft directive has been published.
	The committee rightly emphasised that the minimum standards of the directive should not lead to any lowering of standards in the member states which have already exceeded the requirement, nor should it mean that the states which are applying for accession should adopt the lowest allowable standards as part of their ticket for gaining entry. Can the Minister tell us whether the applicant states will, when the time comes, be examined on compliance with the directive under the EU's Copenhagen principles?
	The committee believes that the directive should ensure that the highest common factor of standards should be adopted and we should ensure that all states adopt best practice. Do the Government agree with that proposal; if so, how do they see it being implemented? Who is to identify best practice among member states? How would it be disseminated, and how would compliance be assured?
	The committee notes the Government's investment of resources in decision-making but says that the quality of the initial decision should be as high as possible. As a result of additional case workers and the introduction of the new computer system--perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that is now fully operational--there has been a big rise in first decisions and a corresponding reduction in the backlog of applications by asylum seekers. But, as has been said by several noble Lords this evening, some of those decisions were purely technical and based on the failure of applicants to complete a 28-page form in English within 10 working days. As the committee observes, one should not have to turn to the appeal procedure as a substitute for good quality decisions in the first instance. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House the rate of non-compliance refusals for any recent period for which figures are available. We have been told that it is a very large number. However, we have never been able to discover from the IND exactly how many refusals are given on those grounds.
	As your Lordships will note, the committee warns that the rejection of applications on non-compliance grounds puts us at risk of violating our international obligations. The committee says that,
	"there is no substitute for a procedure that produces a speedy, fair and sustainable decision on the merits".
	The Government agree with that in principle but consider that, as an adjudicator then has to deal with a matter of substance that should have been considered on first application, we are in the clear as far as concerns our international obligations.
	At the same time, as several noble Lords have observed, the Government are unhappy with Article 7 of the directive which calls for better translation and interpretation services which might, therefore, help to reduce the number of non-compliance refusals. If people had proper interpretation and translation services they would be able to fill in the form and there would be fewer refusals on the grounds that they had not replied to it. I do not know whether the Kurds referred to by the right reverend Prelate would come into that category. However, when one looks at this directive one must consider whether it will be of benefit to the applicants who have difficulty with the procedures that they face at present. Would they have had to seek refuge in the properties of the Church if proper facilities had been made available to them in the first instance and they had been able to go through the procedures without any difficulty?
	The committee suggests that the minimum standard has been set too low because of the discretion given to member states to derogate from important safeguards. It suggests that the rights of asylum seekers under international law are not adequately protected and that entrenchment of dubious concepts such as "manifestly unfounded claim", "safe country of origin" and "safe third country" could undermine the application of the convention or the ECHR.
	Most of the witnesses heard by the committee attacked the idea of "safe country of origin", and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made particular reference to that. The Home Office is developing its own country assessments against which particular claims can be tested, and an applicant from a country where very few allegations of human rights violations are made will not occupy very much time and effort in the evaluation of his individual claim. Justice, the UNHCR, ILPA, Amnesty International and Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill all criticise the concept in principle.
	The committee concluded that the risks of wrongly returning an applicant to an unsafe country, and the potentially devastating consequences to him if he is returned, are too great to justify the retention of the idea of "safe country of origin", but if it remains in the directive the Commission should monitor its application and present an annual report to the European Parliament. That is second best, if we can get it.
	The committee says that there should also be a review of the criteria used to define safe countries of origin and safe third countries in the two annexes to the directive. My noble friend Lord Lester in questioning one of the witnesses before the committee referred to,
	"a very strange list of the human rights that are relevant",
	in deciding what is a safe country. He suggested that if there is to be a list of criteria, at least it should include all the well-known and relevant international standards. I am very sorry that the Government have resisted the committee's recommendation on that matter against all the professional advice which we have in the public domain, although we do not know what advice the Government have been given which leads them to a contrary opinion. Perhaps the Minister could usefully say something on that matter today.
	In our own system that means that the applicant has no right of appeal from an adjudicator's decision once a claim has been treated as exceptional. The quality of the first decision of course is the same for everyone, as Mrs Roche made clear before the committee. But when a case is certified the adjudicator's decision is final, except for the remote possibility of a successful judicial review. The judges of the IAT were very critical of the accelerated procedures. Mr Ockelton's describes the process. He said:
	"The Secretary of State picks up certain types of cases and certifies that they are cases which for one reason or another are cases without merit. There is an appeal to an Adjudicator and if he agrees with the conditions of certification there is no appeal to the Tribunal and therefore, the alternative procedure of judicially reviewing the certificate, which is much more expensive and longer, takes place with, in a substantial minority of cases, the result that the certificate is set aside, and the matter . . . comes before the Tribunal. The effect of accelerating the procedure is to add several months and many hundreds of pounds to the cost of dealing with it".
	That cannot make any sense. I hope that the Government will think again on this particular recommendation.
	Finally, I raise a matter which has not been mentioned. The committee is critical of the directive's lack of clarity about the reasons for detention and the potential width of the grounds on which an applicant can lawfully be detained. The committee believes that Article 11 should make it clear that detention is only permissible when it is in accordance with Article 5 ECHR and UNHCR standards. It wants the directive to include a general statement on the presumption of liberty. I am sorry to note that the Government reject any references to the ECHR and UNHCR standards and they do not say anything at all about the presumption of liberty.
	I asked in the recent debate on prisons when the Government were going to introduce Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which provides for routine bail hearings of people detained under the Immigration Act. I should be grateful if the Minister could reply to that question this evening.
	At the end of May there were 1,144 Immigration Act detainees in our prisons. Although the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told the House that under the Act no one would remain in prison by Christmas, the other day the Home Office announced that Dover Young Offender Institution was in the process of being converted to be used as a place in which Immigration Act prisoners were to be detained and that it was opening in January 2002. There is a little inconsistency between those two statements. On the one hand, they are going to close down all the prisons used for Immigration Act detainees by Christmas and on the other they are going to open a new one in January next year. I should be grateful if the Minister in his reply can explain that discrepancy.
	We are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for an excellent report. This has been a very useful debate. I hope that before long we shall have an opportunity of setting this directive side by side with all the remaining ones and that before any of them become law in Europe we shall have the opportunity of debating them together.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as an English member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, I feel that I am permitted to show off by referring to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which is the correct pronunciation. But we are indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord and his committee for this detailed, balanced and perceptive report. It was a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as a member of that committee also speaking with such authority.
	The noble and learned Lord's committee has recognised the political commitment to develop a common asylum policy. It has rightly highlighted the dilemma which faces all the members of the Community: on the one hand, to have regard to human rights when addressing the problem--which will certainly not go away--while on the other hand addressing the problem--which also will certainly not go away--of the ever-increasing flood of applicants for asylum. That is a factor which is virtually certain to be exacerbated so long as, for example, the unsettled conditions in the Balkans persist.
	The committee has drawn attention to two important matters. The first is the ability given to member states under the present directive to derogate from certain safeguards. This is not a satisfactory position. Tampere envisaged a two-stage system. This may be the recognition of the diversity of practice among member states, but the reality is that it gives members the ability to derogate from the principle that appeals should have a suspensive effect. I note that the indication from the Commission contained in the directive is that the flexibility given to members to derogate in certain key areas should be restricted. It does not state "abolish", and I urge Her Majesty's Government to put pressure on the Commission to ensure that, in the second stage, these exceptions should be brought under control at an early stage.
	The other important matter which the Commission addressed was in the area of safe havens. Several noble Lords have voiced concerns about the current situation. We accept that time may be needed to adopt a common definition of safe havens and safe third countries. The committee has rightly drawn attention to the risks of returning an applicant to an unsafe country of origin. It stated that the potentially devastating consequences are too great to justify the original "safe country of origin" concept. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, both put forward valuable explanations to the background of that.
	On these Benches we are, in principle, supportive of the Government in their attempt to address this problem. In the last Parliament, my noble friends Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Astor and I were privileged to be members of the Home Office Opposition team under my right honourable friend Ann Widdecombe. I think that we had a constructive relationship with Mr Jack Straw and his Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. For domestic reasons of which noble Lords will be aware, our present team cannot yet be named, but I hope that our constructive relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will continue.
	However, we must recognise the particular attractions which the United Kingdom holds for the potential asylum seeker. These were highlighted in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. It enumerated the pull factors which the United Kingdom exerts. I paraphrase these without comment: the perception and availability of social security benefits; the more generous interpretation of asylum law; slow decision-making on asylum cases; lack of an efficient removal system for people refused asylum; access to public services such as free health, education and housing; and scope for living in the country without documentation. The committee went on to note that people living both within and outside the UK seemed to have exaggerated impressions of the generosity of UK social security benefits for asylum seekers, but also suggested that perceptions may be more important in attracting people than is the reality.
	The same committee highlighted the dilatory policy of removals, which is a point on which we take issue with the Government, although we are pleased to note that last week the Minister referred to the extra two-pronged approach to asylum seekers which is now being produced, first, by the caseworkers and, secondly, by the Immigration Service. But we also note the smaller percentage of successful applications, which fell from 17 per cent in 1998 to 10 per cent in 2000. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on those figures.
	A further recommendation from the committee, which I know is being implemented by the Government, is the increased practice of advance border controls. In the case of the United Kingdom this is of course primarily France. We should all be pleased about the increased co-operation being demonstrated by the French Government in this regard. I was also pleased to hear in the earlier debate today details of the Minister's visit to the facilities on the other side of the Channel.
	We have questions on two aspects of the Government's present policy on asylum seekers. The first concerns the system of vouchers, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I agree with him that vouchers can be humiliating, especially in the crowded check-out of a supermarket. The insistence under the regulations that no change be given has the effect that asylum seekers with vouchers frequently find themselves paying more than UK residents. This is a situation which your Lordships will recall both the national aid agencies and the TUC found unacceptable. As I understand it, that was the reason for the Government instituting an inquiry. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the wish that the report comes out as soon as possible.
	We also have reservations about the dispersal system. There is certainly a lack of co-operation on the part of many local authorities outside London and the South East, where there is abundant evidence that families are being discriminated against on grounds of cost. The attitude of, "Let the Government come up with the money and then we will talk", seems to be prevalent. In the meantime, local authorities in the South East are left footing the major part of the expense. The experience in Kent--the authority most affected--springs to mind.
	We should like to see secure reception areas. These would send a clear signal to economic migrants who abuse the system that all asylum seekers are liable to be detained. Several references have been made to the language problems of asylum seekers. We believe that these secure, well-ordered centres should include language, legal and social welfare support to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are absorbed into British society with the minimum of difficulty.
	I have sought to emphasise the problems facing the United Kingdom in the current climate of mass and increasing pressure on asylum. However, the report referred to the whole Community. Over the centuries, the United Kingdom has a record second to none of giving asylum to--and, indeed, benefiting from--those fleeing persecution. We would like to think that in that regard we are a role model, a point emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	But we are part of the Community. The committee has done Parliament a service in providing such a valuable and constructive study and in assessing these urgent and difficult problems, in particular the problem of enforcing minimum standards, which some countries, for whatever reason--political, geographical or simply through pressure of asylum seekers--find it difficult to observe. I very much look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer some of the detailed questions that have been raised during the course of the debate. However, there are one or two matters that I first wish to put on the record. I congratulate the committee and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on producing the report. As I said in the earlier debate, I appreciate that an enormous amount of background work has been done by Members of the House. It has been a very detailed inquiry into the Commission's proposals.
	We of course welcome the endorsement given by the report for the concept of a common European asylum system. We are actively participating in the process and taking a lead in pressing for swift progress towards getting some meaningful minimum standards. It is only right that asylum seekers should expect to receive similar treatment regardless of which member state considers the application. It is very important that we do not play one state off against another and that we do not play asylum seekers off against themselves. There are clear benefits for the UK, which are self-evident, in having a more level playing field in terms of the treatment of asylum seekers. Therefore, we shall look to opt in to all the measures in the asylum field unless they directly impact on our ability to maintain our frontier controls. The UK has adopted all the measures in the asylum field to date. A decision has yet to be made on the reception of asylum seekers, but that is hardly surprising since the issue has only recently arisen. Our presumption will be to opt in to the measures where we can.
	We cannot expect harmonisation to be brought about in one go. Practices vary enormously among member states. Therefore, we support the approach of the European Commission in introducing minimum standards in the short term. We are taking a lead and an active part in helping to set the minimum standards for procedures. But the matter is complex. I freely admit that progress has been slow.
	We consider procedural standards in the UK to be high. We have nothing to be defensive about in the way in which this country has treated asylum seekers as compared to other countries. I am not saying that our procedures are perfect but the standards are high. We do not expect to have to make significant changes in order to comply with the directive. Where we need to do so, we stand ready to comply with the required changes.
	I must also emphasise that harmonisation will not merely benefit member states; it will also benefit asylum seekers themselves. Procedural guarantees will be established where none existed previously. It is important for asylum seekers and those representing them to appreciate that those procedural guarantees will be established.
	I do not want to be churlish, but there is an assumption that the purpose of harmonisation is to lower standards. That is not the case. There is no reason why a member state would need to use EU proposals as an excuse to lower standards. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no intention to lower any of the standards in the UK where the minimum standards are set below current UK levels. I cannot make it any clearer than that. We are not seeking to lower standards. In some ways it can be compared to the minimum wage: raising the floor does not imply lowering the ceiling. That is a fair point to make. This includes procedural guarantees for the applicant, including access to legal advice, explanation of the process and a swift determination of the claim. But it must also include procedures that protect the asylum system from abuse, such as the use of accelerated procedures in certain circumstances.
	We hope to see some revisions to the text of the proposals. For example, some of the time limits are generous and could create delays. We should prefer to see targets for various stages of the process rather than fixed time limits which are inflexible and without meaningful sanction.
	We note concerns over the designation of safe countries of origin and safe third countries. These are useful concepts if used with care and restraint. They are not the first tool, as it were, for which we should reach. We believe it right that the directive should permit the use of these concepts. It does not follow that they will be misused. They are already widely used--particularly the concept of the safe third country, which is used as a tool to combat secondary migration. The directive provides some safeguards, but we accept that the current text requires improvement. We shall seek to do that during the course of the current negotiations.
	We note also concerns about procedural safeguards such as providing information in a language that the applicant understands. The idea that that there would not be such provision beggars belief. I do not know how far it is generally known that the United Kingdom already provides explanatory notes in 33 languages. We do not provide them in 150 dialects; we provide them in 33 languages. I freely admit that the choice of language is targeted at those countries from which most asylum seekers come to the UK. That makes sense. If there is a serious deficiency in that list of 33, we shall add to it. It is not the ceiling, but we are already making provision to that extent. It cannot be held against us that we are not providing information in the languages of the asylum seekers.
	I shall touch briefly on some of the points raised in the debate. This is where my honeymoon period definitely runs out. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for his remarks, but he has invited me to do something that I am not prepared to do; namely, to pronounce in a definitive fashion on the voucher system in advance of the publication of the review. Judging by what I have read and studied, and leaving aside the issue of principle, clearly many practical and operational difficulties arose with the introduction of the voucher system. People were told that they could not use them in some shops, or that they could not buy a certain product with them. That kind of situation caused many problems, including delays, queues, and people feeling that they were being looked at and considered to be different because they did not have proper money.
	This is probably against myself, but I have to say that the nature of my former constituency was such that I had a 35 per cent ethnic minority; and, indeed, Birmingham has taken a good share of asylum seekers. Until the date when I legally ceased to be a Member of the other place--5 o'clock on 14th May--I had not dealt with a complaint about vouchers. I had dealt with many other cases relating to housing and other issues, but I had not even seen a voucher. Obviously, I have seen one since I moved to the Home Office. I am not saying that because I had no knowledge of any such cases there were no problems, but I have reached the point where I have to admit that I do not have the hands-on experience to share with the House that others clearly have. I am not drawing massive conclusions from that, but I am not prepared to pronounce on the principle in advance of the publication of the review.
	I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and another speaker, talked about torture cases. I would be horrified to learn that we were not dealing appropriately with these allegations. As for the cases that were mentioned in press reports either last week or the week before, I can tell the House that we have asked for them to be looked into. At one prison that I recently visited, one of the detainees was thought to have been a possible victim and had been placed on a one-to-one 24-hour suicide watch. There is a serious issue to be considered in that respect. It is not our intention in any way to mistreat these people, or not to take seriously their allegations of problems relating to torture. It is an open invitation with specific cases; indeed, it is very difficult to raise the generality. However, I should like to know about other specific cases, as would my colleagues at the Home Office. We treat such matters extremely seriously. It would be a fault in our system if we were not addressing the issue.
	Perhaps I may also touch on the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate as regards the Liverpool case. I cannot go into the detail, but I can probably give the right reverend Prelate more of an answer than I thought I could when he told me privately about the case that he would mention--though I was not quite certain which one it was. There have been problems over the landmark location in Liverpool regarding the two tower blocks. They have been investigated. Both the police and NASS have separately investigated. There was an arrest but no charge, and police inquiries have been conducted.
	On the basis that I cannot operate on a hunch but only on evidence, I can tell the House that if the police find evidence and serious charges follow the arrest, we would have to take the matter seriously. We would have to act upon that. However, that is not the case. Although I have not taken extra advice on this today, as of Wednesday or Thursday of last week investigations and inquiries had been undertaken both by NASS and the police. As regards some of those who made the allegations, it is true that we do not want to send them back. There is obviously friction between individuals; indeed, that is fully understandable. However, I have to point out that asylum seekers cannot pick and choose where they go. We have offered to remove them from the church where they have taken refuge and to take them to Sunderland.
	We have looked into the matter, and there is no evidence whatever to suggest that there is any connection with the location in Liverpool and that in Sunderland; for example, allegations that someone will be "duffed up" and that information has been sent from one place to another. As I say, that has been looked into. We cannot allow people to choose where to go under the dispersal arrangements. It would cause absolute chaos. Indeed, to suggest that we have put everyone back in the South East, where in the main they all arrive, is totally unacceptable. That is why the dispersal system was set up in the first place and it has been very successful by and large. No one is saying that there are no problems, but it has considerably eased the pressure on the South East.
	I was asked about the backlog of applications. First, I shall deal with refusal rates. Refusal rates are roughly at the same rate they have always been. However, I shall not argue about the odd percentage. The refusal rate overall is roughly 75 to 80 per cent. In places such as Oakington, where people have gone for special reasons--by and large because their applications are fast tracked--the refusal rate is about 94 per cent. However, as I say, the refusal rate overall is about 75 to 80 per cent.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether applicant states would be examined on the directive. All applicant countries will have to comply with and implement EU laws--there is no question of that--including the directive when it is passed. During the examination of an applicant country prior to accession, the implementation of asylum law will be scrutinised. If assistance is needed, it will be given where necessary. However, as I say, all applicant countries will have to comply fully with EU laws. There is no "let out" in that respect.
	I was asked about the budget. The Immigration and Nationality Department's budget will increase by about £2 billion over the four years ending March 2004. Since January 2000, IND has acquired 4,000 extra staff--it has virtually doubled its staff--including 1,000 extra immigration officers. We have expanded the appeals system by trebling the number of courtrooms to 103, doubling the number of sitting days and increasing the judiciary by 40 per cent resulting in a massive increase in first decisions. I am talking about proper decisions here. Reaching a decision quickly does not mean that it is faulty. Some 133,000 first decisions were reached in the last financial year--up from about 57,000--as a result of the extra staff and training. The backlog now is down to 27,000. That huge increase in first decisions will result in an increase in appeals. We hope that the increase in the number of courtrooms, the number of sitting days and the judiciary will tackle that matter, but that will inevitably be difficult.
	I was asked about the non-compliance refusal rate. An asylum seeker who reaches Britain must fill in the appropriate form. Help will be provided to fill in the form. There have been difficulties in that regard to which I shall come. The non-compliance refusal rate has reduced significantly since the last quarter of 2000 when around 40 per cent of refusals were made on the ground of non-compliance. That was a high figure. Over the past three months non-compliance refusals have accounted for about 22 per cent of refusals. That is due in part to the creation of a PO box number specifically for the return of the relevant statements. That was set up only on 25th November last year to assist internal processes. The figures for non-compliance were much lower in previous years. I suspect that the present situation is affected by the dispersal system, the need to keep track of people and the faster decision-making process. Under the old system if people did not fill in the relevant form, we did not bother about it. We did not have sufficient staff to open the sacks of mail. We are working hard to tackle that situation.
	As regards the situation in Dover, I speak without the benefit of up-to-date advice but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a legitimate point. I hope that my answer will bear examination in Hansard. Let us make clear that we have never said that we would not detain asylum seekers. We want to get them out of our prisons. I recently visited Walton Prison, the largest prison in the country; it has about 1,300 inmates. There have been recent changes. We have had a huge increase in female prisoners. I do not remember the names of all the prisons but one prison now has a female rather than a male population to give extra capacity. We can then move the detainees out of Rochester Prison and have a dedicated establishment in Dover. I regret that I cannot remember its name. It will not be like a prison. They will be detained but not in what I would call the prison estate. Some of those in the Dover establishment may be detained prior to removal but removals will increase. We have made that clear. The current figure is 800 to 900 a month. We aim to achieve a target of 2,500 a month by the end of this financial year, next March. I do not deny that that approach will cause difficulties. There will be some tough decisions. Some may be detained prior to removal. I gladly give way.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the establishment--it was Dover YOI and is now being used to detain immigration Act detainees--be run under the detention centre estate with detention centre rules? It will not remain part of the Prison Service.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my answer is that I hope so because it is our intention to get people out of prison. But we shall still have detention. I cannot believe that I am wrong. That is part of the process. It is not happening at present; the change has to be facilitated. We have just made the announcement. We have only just told the three Members of Parliament where changes in the estate in their constituencies are involved.
	The honeymoon period has come to an end: there is only one day left of this Session. However, I hope that I have put the Government's view in context. I thank the committee. There is much work still to be done on the directive. I have no doubt that we shall return to the issue before it is finalised.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may say a particular word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his kind words and to the Minister for his reassuring and constructive response.
	It has been interesting to listen to points raised about vouchers and reception conditions in detention. It tends to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury: that in moving towards a uniform system, it would be helpful to have a debate so that we can view all the subjects in their full context. One has been drawn into a discussion on vouchers and the conditions of detention. Those issues were not covered in any detail in the report but they will be covered in future reports.
	I was struck by a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He said that asylum is about an individual in an individual situation. That phrase struck the same note that we sought to strike. As a statement of principle of the way forward in dealing with applications by asylum seekers it seems about as good as one could expect. I am most grateful for all the contributions. I commend the report to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2001

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with permission, I shall speak also to similar regulations for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. There are some minor differences between the three sets of regulations reflecting differing electoral provisions in those parts of the Kingdom, but their effects are the same. These relatively simple regulations should not detain us long. Their purpose is perfectly plain, but I shall also explain the background to why we are discussing these regulations rather than other more comprehensive regulations about the sale and supply of the electoral register.
	These regulations are made under Sections 10(4) and 201(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. They specify a form to be used for the annual canvass of electors that each electoral registration officer is obliged by Section 10 to conduct in his area. Electoral registration officers can use that form or one to the same effect to carry out their canvass, which takes place each year by reference to the date 15th October. The form specified is the same as the form that was previously prescribed for that purpose, except for one or two minor modifications that make it clearer or reflect changes in the law.
	We need to prescribe a form this year in particular because the previous form was repealed. It had been prescribed in the Representation of the People Regulations 1986, most of which were repealed when the new 2001 regulations were introduced in February this year. Those regulations implemented a large part of the Representation of the People Act 2000, but there were some outstanding regulations still to be made to bring Section 9 into force. We had intended to introduce those regulations at this time, but, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, we do not now intend to do so. Those regulation would have contained a new registration form that would have allowed electors to tick an opt-out box to ensure that their details did not appear on an edited register--the only one available for unrestricted sale under the proposed new regulations.
	The background to the issue lies in the European Data Protection Directive and our own Data Protection Acts. One of the fundamental principles of data protection is that data collected for one purpose should not be used for another without the consent of the data subject.
	Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 gives effect to that principle by providing for an opt-out box on the registration form and for two registers--an edited one and a full one--so that electors can say whether they are content for their details to be used for purposes other than electoral ones. Regulations are needed to bring that section into force.
	Since the Act was passed in March 2000, officials and previous Home Office Ministers, who until now have been responsible for the regulations, have been engaged in extensive consultations. The aim has been to find a way to make regulations that protect the personal data contained in the register while at the same time preserving the ability of law enforcers, commerce and government to carry on their legitimate and vital business. That is not an easy balance to strike. There are conflicting interests and strong differences of opinion.
	When we published our draft regulations earlier this year, we received comments from a wide range of interests. The consultation shows that there remain fundamental divisions and widespread concerns over the regulations. In the light of those responses to the consultation and after receiving advice from the Electoral Commission, we decided not to proceed with the draft regulations. Instead, we intend to consult further to see whether we can resolve some of the difficulties.
	The aim will be to lay a further draft before Parliament in the autumn or winter. That will mean that the introduction of the opt-out box on the registration form and the publication of the register in two forms--a full one and an edited one--will be delayed until next year. That is regrettable, but I have no doubt that it is preferable if it ensures that we introduce the new arrangements in an orderly and well planned way.
	I know that some noble Lords were concerned about the timing of the regulations and felt that what was planned was being rushed. I hope that the decision meets their concerns. I stress that we have not in any way given up on our commitment to put in place measures that will protect the personal data collected from electors for electoral purposes. Further draft regulations will be produced in due course. In the mean time, we are obliged to give electoral registration officers the means to carry out their annual canvass this year by prescribing a form for them to use. The regulations do that. In effect, they restore the status quo so that the annual canvass of electors can proceed as usual this autumn. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, having listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, I believe that the Government find themselves in somewhat of a mess in relation to these affairs. If I remember rightly, when the Bill passed through this House, we pressed the Government on a number of matters which were discarded. I suspect that those issues are now arising and becoming real on Ministers' desks. However, as do others, we welcome anything which will help to increase the number of people who vote. No one can be happy that a government can gain such a large majority with the support of only 25 per cent of the electorate.
	I want to raise two small points, although they may be larger than I suspect. In looking at the regulations, we can see no provision for householders to be asked whether someone is a Peer of Parliament. Having no vote in parliamentary elections, do we not need to be marked appropriately on the electoral roll? If we read it correctly, the form also implies that EU citizens resident here cannot vote in elections for the European Parliament but only in those for local government. Can the Minister explain that position? Outwith those questions, we shall support the regulations tonight.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, feel concern in relation to this matter. I want to raise two relatively minor points about the form of the regulations. One, concerning local government electors, has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I understand that it may be technically correct to say that the franchise for European elections may be provided by reference to local government electors. However, that is clearly unsatisfactory because it fails to make it clear to citizens of other member states of the European Union that they have a right to vote not only in local government elections but in European elections and, indeed, in elections for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is clear that in its current state the form is misleading and that it should provide further explanation of the elections in which resident citizens of other member states are entitled to vote.
	My second point is that, for the first time, the Representation of the People Act provided for the registration of homeless persons. The form appears to be wholly inappropriate to be filled in by people who are homeless. They must be canvassed in some other way. I wonder what plans, if any, the Government have for doing so.
	However, the most important issue by far is the question of access to the register. I remember that I participated in some substantial debates on that matter during discussion of the Representation of the People Act. It was accepted that, for the purposes of campaigning, political parties would have access to the full register. However, it was also clear that, save for very limited and specific purposes, there should be no general access for commercial or other non-political purposes to an unedited version of the register.
	I believe that this is a matter of considerable importance. People certainly expect that their names and addresses will not be made available to the general public or businesses at large. The issue has become much more important in the past two years now that it is possible to buy the whole electoral register of the United Kingdom on CD.
	It is very important for the Government to proceed with the proposal. I am unhappy about the fact that we are now going to face another year in which the electoral register will not be edited when being made available for general commercial purposes, apart from the very limited circumstances in which it was agreed that it was legitimate to make it available. We are, I am afraid, unhappy about the fact that the proposal will be delayed for a further year but we hope that the Government will come forward as soon as possible with a final version of the regulations relating to the canvass of electors. That will enable us to proceed to an edited version of the register.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, it is important to record the fact that one is a Member of this House. I was issued with a voting card, which is wrong, although I did not use it. It would not be difficult to provide such information on the canvass form. That also had a microscopic effect on the turnout.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who supported the order. I shall begin with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The form has a box that states:
	"Mr. Mrs. Ms. Miss, etc.".
	One could add the word "Lord", if one is a noble Lord. I can think of nobody more to be trusted to record the fact that they are Members of this House than Members of this House.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, surely he realises that there are now very large numbers of Peers who are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Indeed, my Lords. I should have thought that those very people would be able to indicate that they are able to vote. We are dealing in this context with a moderately informed electorate. Although this point is of great interest to Members of this House it does not give rise to any real difficulty.
	There are no European elections until 2003 and no Welsh elections until 2004--

Lord Goodhart: My Lords--

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would hold on until I have finished my answer, after which he can give me a going over in relation to it.
	The provisions are intended to apply for only one year. It is intended that there should be a canvass for 2002.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again. He said that no European elections were due until 2003, but there could perfectly well be a by-election for the European Parliament.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the schedule refers to: "Your right to vote", and it states:
	"You can vote in elections only if your name appears in the register of electors",
	but there is no specificity in relation to that.
	On homelessness, the homeless can register in the locality in which they spend most of their time. That has been the position since February of this year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly raised some very important points about access to the register. I did not in any way seek to underplay that in my earlier contribution. We consulted fully on this matter. Quite a number of issues need to be resolved. We are in effect rolling over the status quo for another year, which seems to us to be far and away the most sensible thing to do and better than rushing to a conclusion this year. In that respect we have the support of the Electoral Commission. As I said, we hope to bring forward in the autumn or winter of this year an electoral canvass form for 2002, which will deal with and resolve those important issues. I hope that the noble Lord feels comforted by my remarks.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I point out that it is highly likely that there will be an election in Northern Ireland within the next six months.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the form of canvass, which appears in the schedule, states:
	"You can vote in elections only if your name appears in the register of electors".

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2001

Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move the following two sets of regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th and 6th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2001

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would like formally to move this order on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey who, I hope, will shortly be joining us in order to give more detail to the House on this important order relating to the transfer of functions from I am not sure where. It is probably worthwhile waiting for him. I do not believe that the order will detain the House for very long. We have obviously moved rather more quickly on the representation of the people orders than we had expected. I hope that my noble friend will be coming soon from somewhere. There is one other order and then after that we have other orders. I see that my noble friend has arrived and he will be able to tell the House about the detail of these important orders.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first order is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act which provides for circumstances where it is appropriate for the Scottish Ministers to exercise executive powers in areas where primary legislation continues to be a matter for this Parliament. That is commonly known as executive devolution.
	The House will have seen the Executive Note to which I have already referred, which explains in some detail what the entries in this order are about. However, I hope it will be helpful if I give a brief resume.
	Noble Lords will be aware of the Government's commitment to increase our use of renewable energy to 10 per cent of consumption by 2010. The Scottish Executive have committed themselves to putting in place measures to contribute towards that by setting the target for a substantial increase in Scotland. That is in recognition of the tremendous potential for further renewables development that exists in Scotland. That commitment sits at the heart of the Executive's climate change programme.
	The powers to allow Scottish Ministers to impose a renewable obligation on electricity suppliers have already been transferred. As in England and Wales, it will be put in place by order, in this case a Scottish statutory instrument that will be subject to affirmation by the Scottish Parliament. The obligation itself is still to be the subject of a formal consultation.
	The transfer of the further powers in this order is also required, to allow the Scottish Executive to carry this programme forward. Those relate to the Electricity Act 1989 and the Utilities Act 2000.
	The powers under Sections 32B and 32C of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by the Utilities Act 2000, will enable the Scottish Executive to arrange for the issue of certificates to qualifying generators of renewable energy. Those certificates, which will be issued by the industry regulator, will allow suppliers to prove that renewable energy subject to the obligation has been supplied within Great Britain and that they have consequently met the requirements under Section 32 of the Act. Section 32C provides powers to enable suppliers to meet their obligations by means of a buy-out mechanism.
	The draft order also transfers to the Scottish Ministers powers to make certain savings orders in respect of the now replaced Section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989. Under the Electricity Act Ministers exercised powers to make orders (known as the Scottish Renewable Obligation) to promote renewable energy.
	Although these powers have been superseded by the new Section 32, the orders are still in place and Section 67 of the Utilities Act makes provision for savings orders to be made in respect of them. The order that we are considering this evening transfers the power to make such savings orders to the Scottish Ministers. As with the Section 104 order, to which I shall shortly turn, the House will perhaps agree that it is an interesting feature that the result of this order is expected to be uniformity with England and Wales.
	I turn to the draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (Conditions attached to PSV Operator's Licence and Competition Test for Exercise of Bus Functions) Order 2001. This is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Section 104 provides for subordinate legislation to be made in this Parliament which contains provisions that are necessary or expedient in consequence of any Act of the Scottish Parliament.
	Towards the end of last year both Parliaments debated and passed separate Transport Acts, which both include provisions to improve the quality and efficiency of bus services and to encourage greater use of public transport in general. This order makes provision consequential on provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. This is an Act of the Scottish Parliament, which received Royal Assent on 25th January 2001. The exercise of these provisions requires functions to be conferred on bodies responsible to this Parliament and not to the Scottish Parliament. This requires an order to be made by the Secretary of State and debated by this Parliament.
	The order has two purposes. First, it gives the Traffic Commissioner in Scotland the same enforcement powers as are available to his counterparts in England and Wales under this Parliament's Transport Act 2000. These powers will allow him to attach conditions to a public service vehicle (PSV) operator's licence where that operator has failed in its obligations under the Transport (Scotland) Act in relation to quality partnerships, quality contracts, ticketing schemes or the provision of information.
	The order also confers additional functions on the Director-General of Fair Trading. The Section 104 order confers similar powers on the Director-General of Fair Trading in relation to Scotland, as do the provisions made in Schedule 10 of the Transport Act 2000 for England and Wales. These powers are a little more complex to explain than those of the Traffic Commissioner that I have just described.
	The provisions of both Transport Acts enable the consideration of wider public interest objectives, including those of bus users and the community in general, when assessing whether a local authority has used powers anti-competitively. This is in relation to powers given to local authorities to introduce measures under the Transport Acts to improve public transport.
	This consideration of the wider public interest has been achieved by establishing a new competition test in relation to certain actions that can be taken under each of the Acts. This new competition test applies to quality partnership schemes, subsidised bus services and ticketing schemes alone. It does not impact on other areas of competition or transport law.
	The new test, tailored to the circumstances of bus operations, is based on "proportionality". It recognises that when putting in place measures to drive up quality standards, or to improve local services, or to take account of environmental considerations, there may be an impact on competition. The test requires that the effect on competition of any such measures taken should not be disproportionate to the public interest objectives.
	This new competition test will enable local authorities to secure the benefits of the new bus powers within the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, including better vehicles, better facilities and service improvements without falling foul of existing competition legislation.
	But in order to give effect to the new competition test, the Director-General of Fair Trading must be given a role, and a procedural framework, within which to enforce these provisions. Competition law and the functions of the Director-General of Fair Trading in terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973 are wholly reserved matters. It is therefore necessary to make this Section 104 order, to enable him to enforce this new competition test in Scotland.
	Finally, I should make it clear that, although this order will extend the Director-General of Fair Trading's functions to Scotland, it will not extend powers to the Scottish Parliament to consider competition matters.
	This order is necessary and expedient in consequence of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. In practice, it will provide an enforcement and competition regime that is consistent across Great Britain as regards very similar provisions in the respective Transport Acts to allow proper account to be taken of public interest objectives.
	I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support both of these orders. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, before I speak to these two orders, I should declare two interests. First, I have a son-in-law who works in the oil extraction industry and, secondly, I have a stepson who works in the bus industry in Scotland.
	I should also like to praise the usual clarity of the Executive Note prepared for the Scottish Parliament--a model for this Parliament.
	The devolution order obviously transfers functions within the Electricity Act, as modified by the recent Utilities Act, from Westminster to the Scottish Ministers. I welcome those changes on two counts. First, I am always in favour of increasing autonomy for Scotland. Secondly, the issue of energy generation in general, and the use of renewable energy in particular, are both important issues for Scotland to wrestle with. I rather suspect that little happens now in the minds of the public about the need to switch over to renewable forms of energy and energy use reduction. So I expect that the crisis will not be upon us until the North Sea and the eastern Atlantic continental shelves have run out.
	Despite this pessimism, I firmly believe that Scotland must begin to prepare itself for this medium-term energy crisis, so that when the oil and gas run out Scotland will have in place competent, proven and established methods of renewable energy generation. We must not let ourselves be caught out. Scotland's under-populated terrain and extensive coastal waters provide an excellent medium for renewable generation. It is entirely right that this particular aspect of energy policy should be placed in the lap of the Scottish Parliament and on the desks of the Scottish Ministers. I hope that our elected members and Ministers will seize the opportunity to be creative and positively promotional with these new powers. I suspect, however, that Scotland's planning system may hinder the progress that is necessary.
	I observe that an electricity generator who does not meet the renewable target on the certificate will be able to buy out the obligations. I hope that the buy-out rate will be sufficient positively to encourage that generator to greater efforts in the next year.
	In conclusion, I refer to two examples that bear on this issue. First, Scotland could swap agricultural set-aside for the production of bio-diesel. Secondly, we could learn from the hydro-electric experience of our Norwegian neighbours. Just to prove that not everything is bad, excessive rain last year led to Norway not having to import electricity from Denmark, as the hydro dams could absorb and make use of the otherwise unwelcome increase in rain.
	I now turn to the transport order. First, I point out that a Westminster order in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament is a rare legislative phenomenon. Constitutional anoraks will be completely animated by this! I also welcome this order within the context of the Great Britain transport policy. It deals effectively with the issue of cross-border uniformity. Fortunately, the recent Transport Acts passed by this Parliament and by the Scottish Parliament seem to have achieved similar outcomes. In this case, cross-border uniformity is easily achieved. It will not always be so, nor should it. For this order to be judged useful, the outcome has to be the identifiable improvement of bus services in Scotland. Of all the sectors of public transport, this is the one that the public seek to avoid. The industry must work to present itself as acceptable in all respects and the public need to make the effort to appreciate improvements when they are made. Bus services are the most flexible of all public transport systems. I wish both the orders well.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving such a detailed explanation of the two orders. I was particularly interested in that relating to the creation of renewable energy. Are the Government expecting Scotland to produce more or less than 10 per cent of renewables by 2010?
	Furthermore, I was interested to hear the Minister say that the certificates will be "tradable" across the Border. Does that mean that the target in England and Wales will be adjusted to take up the balance of the variation introduced by the Scots?

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his explanation of the orders. Like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, we are content to welcome and endorse their purpose, the more so because it has been made clear that the intention is to deliver uniformity of the competition regime, particularly in the context of the second order.
	Also like the noble Earl, we applaud the practice of making the Executive Notes available to the House. I cannot help feeling that it would be advantageous if the practice could be extended. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has far more expertise and experience in these matters than I and I look forward to the Minister's clarifications of the point he raised.
	Subject only to that, we on these Benches happily support the two orders.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I acknowledge immediately that the Executive Notes provided to the Scottish Parliament have set a high standard which it should be incumbent on us to match in this Parliament. It is fair to say that the Explanatory Notes to legislation which are available in this country have been greatly improved in the past five years. It has become the practice--and it was confirmed by the report of the Offices Committee which was agreed by the House today--that according to the procedures of the House the Explanatory Notes should be made available with the Bill. However, it is true that we have a way to go and that the Executive Notes which are provided in Edinburgh should be an example to us all.
	It will be agreed by all noble Lords who have spoken that the last thing I should be doing in responding to a debate on the orders is talking about energy or transport policy. Such matters are for the Scottish Parliament and the two orders facilitate that either under Section 63 or Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Although I acknowledge what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, about the Scottish planning system and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, about its commitment to the increase in renewable energy to 10 per cent of consumption, those matters are strictly for the Scottish Parliament. The orders merely make it possible under the Scotland Act for it to take account of them. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to intervene in its spheres of responsibility. In those circumstances, I commend the orders to the House.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I was asking merely whether the Government envisaged that they would be able to adjust their policies in England and Wales to balance whatever happens in Scotland.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly so: the tradable limits policy enables one to balance across the Border.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (Conditions attached to PSV Operator's Licence and Competition Test for Exercise of Bus Functions) Order 2001

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 2001

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move that the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 2001 laid before the House on 20th June 2001 be approved. The purpose of this order is to make one small but significant change to the 1987 Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme which sets the conditions under which the authority may raise levies from cereal growers, dealers and processors in order to fund its activities.
	I should perhaps stress at the outset that this change is made at the request of the HGCA and reflects discussions which it has had with the various stakeholders concerned. Government have also carried out a consultation exercise on the change as required by the Act.
	The Home-Grown Cereals Authority is a public body set up under the Cereals Marketing Act 1965. The order before us today amends the levy scheme; that is, the arrangements under which the authority collects the levy on cereals. Except where grain is sold directly into intervention, the first purchaser of the cereals collects the levy from cereal growers on behalf of the authority. The first purchaser, or dealer, pays the grower levy over to the authority together with the levy payable by the dealer on the transaction. This method of levy collection is both cheaper and more efficient than the alternative of requiring direct payments to the authority from 60,000 or so UK cereals growers. It means that more of the levy collected can be used to fund the authority's activities and less on administration.
	Dealers are permitted to make a deduction from the gross amount of levy collected before passing the balance to the authority. This deduction--a kind of commission--provides dealers with some measure of recompense for the costs incurred in collecting the grower levy on behalf of the authority. The only change being made by the order before us today is to increase to 5 per cent from 3.7 per cent the deduction which dealers may make from the gross levy collected.
	The increase is a result of an agreement between the different sectors of the industry that will, we believe, benefit all levy payers. It will benefit the dealers, obviously, because they will receive an enhanced contribution towards their levy collection costs. Other sectors of the industry will benefit as the agreement paves the way for them to have access to other funds. The order will come into force on 1st August 2001 in time for the first tranche of levy collection in the new cereals marketing year that started on 1st July 2001.
	I have already explained that the legislation requires consultation. That consultation has been carried out and the results have been placed in the Library, along with a regulatory impact assessment in the usual way. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the Minister said there was consultation among dealers, farmers and so on of home-grown cereals. Was there unanimous agreement on this matter? I believe that, at a time when farmers are under an enormous amount of pressure, to increase the levy is yet another nail in their financial coffin. Although the main reason for the authority is to improve the production and marketing of UK cereals, one wonders whether it is essential that the level should be increased at this stage.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the HGCA requested the change to the dealer percentage following approval by the board and a review by UKASTA, the dealers' representative body. The change has the immediate effect of saving money which would otherwise have been lost under the old system of attribution accounts. There was wide consultation and there was overwhelming support from all those consulted.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have heard the answer to my noble friend's question and read the Hansard report from another place. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke to me in the corridor. The noble Lord assured me that there was nothing to worry about with the order. Of course I did not believe a word. I immediately went back to check Hansard. However, I am delighted to be able to tell the House that having read the contribution of my honourable friend James Paice, we, on these Benches, are totally happy and I am delighted that the noble Lord put me on the right lines.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these draft regulations are intended to increase the fee payable to local planning authorities for applications for prior approval for telecommunications developments. Perhaps it will help if I summarise the current position and identify why we are recommending this increase.
	The Government's general policy in telecommunications development is to encourage and facilitate the roll-out of a modern national telecommunications network while protecting the environment. We want to ensure that the public is able to enjoy the benefits that come from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services. The drive to develop the telecoms network with its attendant base stations, masts and antennae must, nevertheless, be balanced with the Government's commitment to the achievement of environmental objectives.
	The Government attach great importance to keeping to a minimum the level of environmental intrusion caused by telecoms network development. The land use planning system provides the tool for striking the necessary balance. At present, the general planning arrangements mean that an application for planning permission is required for larger telecoms developments, such as masts over 15 metres high and for any mast development in key environmentally sensitive areas, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest.
	Relatively minor development is permitted by the general permitted development order, commonly referred to as the GPDO. The GPDO gives a range of permitted development rights for telecommunications code systems operators who are licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984. These allow operators to carry out specified development without the need to submit an application for planning permission to the local planning authority. The GPDO approach nevertheless incorporates environmental safeguards. The main safeguard is provided for what is known as the prior approval procedure. That gives the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the siting and appearance of telecoms masts. Where the local authority considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect upon local amenity, it is able to refuse approval.
	With regard to the arrangement to distinguish between ground-based masts on the one hand, and those on buildings and other structures on the other, authorities have longer to consider the former: 42 as against 28 days.
	In 1999, in response to growing public concern about the possible health implications of mobile phone masts, the Government asked their statutory advisor, the National Radiological Protection Board, to set up the independent expert group on mobile phones. The group, under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart, considered concerns about health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. It conducted a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of existing research and gathered a wide range of views. The group published its report on 11th May 2000. The Stewart group concluded that,
	"The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases".
	The Stewart group suggested that public consultation under the prior approval arrangements was not working satisfactorily. It suggested that lack of public consultation is a major cause of grievance in people who suffer from loss of amenity when base stations are erected. It further suggested that many feel excluded and disempowered by the current planning arrangements and that the resultant frustration can also have a negative effect on people's health and well-being.
	For those reasons, the group recommended that changes to the planning arrangements were necessary. Last summer my department consulted on possible changes to the planning rules in respect of telecommunications development in the light of the recommendations set out in the Stewart report. Following that consultation, on 16th March of this year the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction, Nick Raynsford, announced a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts. He announced that the Government would bring forward changes to the current Planning Rules and Guidance for Telecommunications Development Order in order to strengthen public consultation requirements on telecommunications proposals which require an application for prior approval so that they are exactly the same as those which require an application for planning permission.
	They will increase the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days; underline that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; extend the prior approval arrangements to cover antennae on roofs where the height of an antenna would exceed four metres; and increase fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
	In recognition of the extra demands which improved consultation will make on authorities, the draft fees regulation will increase the fee payable by developers for prior approval applications in respect of telecommunications development from £35 to £190. The five mobile phone operators to whom this fee increase will be most significant recommended in their response to our consultation last year that the fees should be increased by this amount in order to ensure that the local planning authorities had sufficient resources to deal with the additional consultation arrangements. The sum of £190 is the normal fee payable for an application for planning permission for a mast over 50 metres in height. Since local planning authorities will need to carry out the same public consultation for telecommunications development under the prior approval procedure as they would had they received an application for planning permission, they clearly require a comparable fee. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, the Stewart report, while commenting on the concerns as regards the health risks attached to telecoms development, also called for tougher planning powers for local authorities in dealing with such developments. I think that that amounted to something more than the wider consultation which will be enabled through the increase in fees in these regulations. While that in itself is welcome, it is but a small part of dealing with the issues which concern those living around such developments. The narrow scope of the regulations permits only a rather oblique reference to the underlying issues, but I think that it is fair to refer to one or two recent developments.
	I understand that the Scottish Parliament--we have already heard praise for its procedures this evening--will vote on new procedures as regards telecoms developments after the Recess. Its transport and environment committee heard extensive evidence on the potential health risks. I understand that it concluded that guidance should be based on a precautionary approach, taking into account health and safety as well as other matters.
	Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police Authority--I am happy to say that its relevant committee is chaired by one of my political colleagues--recently put on hold police radio masts until more information about the health implications becomes known.
	I think that it is fair to say that the Government risk raising the expectations of those who are concerned about these developments and then publishing regulations which do not meet those expectations. In some ways that may be the worst of all worlds. I readily admit that many of us want the convenience of mobile phones and for them to operate effectively in every pocket of the country. But we do not like to think about the effects until the masts are erected in our own back yards, or perhaps the back yards of our schools. However, there is public concern about health as well as concerns about amenity; namely, the environmental effects of masts, which now crop up so often.
	However extensive the consultation allowed as a result of these regulations, the local authority cannot take account of the health concerns that may often be expressed by objectors. The Minister spoke about communities and individuals feeling disempowered. That is how they will feel when they make representations to local planning authorities and find that their concerns about health are dismissed, as they will often have to be. I have too often seen in a previous life, as a member and chair of a local planning authority, how frustrated objectors are when they find that the rules--which are not rules written by the local planning authority, but national rules--do not allow their particular concerns to be taken into account.
	I wonder how much consultation will increase as a result of the fees. What increased consultation will the increased fees support? It seems to me that £190 is barely even small change to applicants for this type of development. Some local planning authorities will do a great deal more than £190 will pay for; some do too little at the moment and may well continue to do so. The fee of £190 is woefully inadequate for the adverts that one would wish to see, the direct contact with people who may be affected, the holding of public meetings and the facilitating of the responses of objectors. I put that last matter very high on my personal list.
	From these Benches we shall not obstruct the passage of these regulations. Increasing the fees will be helpful in so far as it goes, but, as a response to the public concern about the issue, this is rather a poor thing.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. Let me say at once that we on these Benches do not quibble with the Government's intention. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, two competing forces are at work here: the Government's overall environmental objective, and their general policy of support for a state-of-the-art telecommunications network, with all its attendant IT and 3G potential. Moreover, as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, striking the balance between these two forces has the added complication imposed by the Stewart report--that is, the possible health implications attendant upon mobile telephony.
	For my part, I make no judgment as to whether these regulations strike the right balance. I hope that the Minister will be pleased to hear that, tempting though it is, I do not intend to launch into a lengthy exposition about IT and 3G. None the less, we on these Benches do have a few areas of concern.
	What lies to the heart of this issue is the sense of powerlessness that people feel under the existing regime. This was a particular theme of the Stewart report. Indeed, it was freely acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord today in his observation that,
	"many feel excluded and disempowered by the planning arrangements".
	That was buttressed by the noble and learned Lord's assertion that a major part of the Government's aim is,
	"to increase fees to enable authorities to carry out"--
	I emphasise the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord's colleague in another place--
	"full public consultation".
	We on these Benches do not dissent from that, but, as I say, it provokes a few questions. First, what do the Government actually mean by "full public consultation"? Flowing from that, the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that from local authority to local authority there is currently a significant variation as to its form and extent, particularly in the context of the kind of planning applications we are discussing today. Therefore, do the Government have any plans to ensure consistency of approach--that is, have they issued, or do they intend to issue, guidance or some kind of direction to local authorities?
	The Minister will also be aware that, on the back of the Stewart report, there are significant health issues that need to be borne in mind. Yet these are not a legitimate planning consideration. They cannot inform the determination of the application. How, therefore--here I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee--can someone for whom these are of particular concern begin to hope that he or she has been "fully" consulted when the process is obliged to ignore his or her locus? In other words, is it not the case that the very concept of "full" consultation is in reality undeliverable?
	There is a particular reason why these questions are important. As the Minister will know, the regulatory impact assessment's estimate that the regulations will generate additional revenue of £465,000 a year was a particular area of debate in another place. I cannot help feeling that it provoked rather more heat than light. Given that a requirement for "full" consultation is an onerous, and in some ways new, burden to impose on local authorities, what should matter is whether the increase in planning fees from £35 to £190--again I find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee--is sufficient to cover the cost. In particular, is the Minister satisfied that local planning departments will not be "out of pocket" in complying with the Government's call for full consultation? I hasten to add that I find it hard to accept that parity of fees within the planning system satisfactorily addresses the point. As I say, the concept of "full" consultation, depending of course on what the Government mean by it, can be seen as an innovation. Perhaps more importantly in this context, what research have the Government done to ascertain whether the fee level proposed is appropriate to the levels of consultation that they are seeking?
	I conclude with this thought. Local authorities could be forgiven for supposing that, if I can put it this way, the Government seem to be willing only part of the means and none of the ends to implement their policy. Although I have no intention of asking the noble Lord to pre-empt or pre-judge it, it may be that the Ove Arup report will shortly give us--and local authorities--a better insight into this issue. That is for another, perhaps not too distant day. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister's reply, in the full expectation that, with his customary wit and charm, he will allay these concerns.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl who have contributed to the debate. I believe that they are both unfair in their approach. What Sir William Stewart, with respect to him, was saying was that at present there is not a medical case to justify not building masts. But there is a concern about the lack of consultation that people feel before a mast is built in the area in which they live. He said that it had an adverse effect on people's sense of well-being and sense of health if they were not properly consulted.
	The recommendation in the Stewart report was that the full planning consultation process should apply. What we have done instead is to say that the prior approval process rather than the full planning process should apply. The consultation required for the prior approval process is identical to the full planning process. So in terms of the precise requirement that Sir William Stewart suggested in his report, we have met that. Scotland has not done that because it has no prior approval process.
	We have met the requirements of Sir William Stewart. There is only one material difference between prior approval and planning; namely, in the prior approval process, if the local authority has not approved the application within eight weeks it is deemed to have been approved. If the local authority has any doubts about the position and is not minded to approve an application, it can simply refuse it. We hope that what will happen is that the matter will be dealt with in a moderately fast way, always remembering that the full planning consultation process has to be gone through. That approach seems to us to strike the right balance. It meets the requirement of Sir William Stewart that there should be full consultation because it goes just as far as planning. But at the same time it provides a motor for the process to be done in a way that allows the telecommunications industry to roll out a mast at a reasonable speed. That strikes us as a reasonable balance. It shows that the Government have accepted the recommended precautionary approach; and, what is more, it should be seen in the context of the fact that we are taking forward a range of precautionary actions, including ensuring that all mobile phone-based stations meet the international exposure guidelines. We are also auditing mobile phone-based stations and masts to assess emissions, focusing on schools. We are setting up a national database with details of base stations. We are also launching a new £7 million joint government-industry research programme, and we are publishing leaflets on mobile phone-based stations to give people the latest information and advice.
	The question was raised as to whether £190 was enough. As I made clear, the local authority is required to go through a consultation process that is identical to that required in planning. So there will be no difference between the position here and that in Scotland in relation to consultation. That was the point upon which Sir William Stewart focused. As one would expect, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, had the courtesy to say that he does not take a position on whether or not it is the right or the wrong balance. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that we should have gone for full planning. But if her concern was that of Sir William Stewart--namely, the consultation process--I can tell her that we have introduced a process that does precisely what the noble Baroness would have wished us to do in relation to consultation.
	In the light of the answers that I have given, I very much hope that the regulations will commend themselves to the House.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he care to elaborate on what form and character of consultation the Government have in mind, rather than using the woolly expression,
	"according to the existing planning system".

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, the precise consultation in any planning application is a matter for the local authority to undertake in accordance with the law. It is for the local authority to decide what the precise amount of consultation should be.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should just like to make the position from these Benches quite clear. I take all the points that the noble and learned Lord has made. However, I remain concerned that the very process that will be undertaken at a little less cost to council taxpayers and the public purse will, nevertheless, leave objectors in a position where they feel that their concerns are not answered because there is a problem with the planning process as a whole. In that sense, I entirely accept that there is no difference between this type and many other types of planning application.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not take the noble Baroness to be saying that there should not be masts; I take it that her concern is about planning as a whole. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government have embarked upon a review of the planning process in respect of which we hope to be able to issue a Green Paper in the course of the autumn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Order 2001

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th July be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this order was made in the Privy Council on 18th July under Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, debated in the other place on 19th July, and will, if approved by your Lordships, come into effect on 30th July. The order makes three essentially technical amendments to policing legislation: two concern the new police recruits referred to in the Act as "police trainees", and the third makes an amendment to parliamentary procedure that I hope will be welcome.
	Before detailing the amendments, I should like to set out for those not familiar with Section 85(8) of 1998 Act how it works. In brief, Her Majesty the Queen at Privy Council makes the order, as happened on 18th July. It must then be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament within 40 sitting days. If it is not, it ceases to have effect.
	Perhaps I may explain the provisions in the order. New police trainees under Section 36 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 do not acquire the status and powers of police officers until after they have successfully completed their recruit training. As a consequence, existing police terms and conditions regulations do not apply to them. Therefore, Section 41 of the Act provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the terms and conditions of trainees. The Secretary of State must consult the Policing Board, among others, before these regulations are made.
	It is a fact that the Government have not as yet been able to appoint a board. Although we hope to be in a position to do so shortly, it will not be in place in time to be consulted before the trainee regulations need to be made. We want to have these in place in time for trainees to be appointed in September. The order accordingly substitutes the existing community accountability body, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, for the board. It does so for the purposes of consultation and to undertake any of the board's functions under the regulations until we have the board in place. The appointment of new recruits clearly cannot be delayed, and in the circumstances I hope that your Lordships will agree that this represents a sensible approach.
	The proposed amendment to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 also relates to recruits. As the legislation stands, the Chief Constable would need to issue trainees with individual firearm certificates in order to train them in firearms handling. Clearly that is disproportionate. The amendment provides a practical remedy by exempting trainees from the requirement to hold firearms certificates. The remaining provision in the order will amend Section 76 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Section 76 in its present form requires a draft order to renew the 50:50 recruitment provisions under Section 47(3), and draft regulations on flags and emblems for the new policing service under Section 54, to be laid in Parliament for 40 days before they come into effect. It does not, however, require them to be debated. That was our intention when the provision was inserted in the Bill on 20th October 2000 in this House. The amendment does what the Lords Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform proposed for the Bill and ensures debates in both Houses by applying the affirmative resolution procedure, following which the legislation would take effect immediately. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 18th July be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I begin by making the point that in the past two weeks we have asked on more than one occasion for a full debate on Northern Ireland. We asked through the usual channels and were refused. We asked again--as I believe other parties did--and were refused. Finally, I personally asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal on a private basis but was also refused.
	Why do we end up discussing this order at this time of night and with little or no warning of its arrival? Once again the Government demonstrate their disdain of the parliamentary process. We are debating Northern Ireland in the middle of the night at the tail end of a Session. Why is the order before us tonight? First, it is because--as so often happened in the previous Session of Parliament--we had sloppy drafting of the original Act. As the Minister has pointed out, it failed to allow for exemption of police trainees from the Northern Ireland firearms legislation during their initial training period. Secondly, the order is before us because the Government's strategy of endless concessions to the republicans has led them absolutely nowhere.
	The policing situation and, indeed, in some areas, the security situation in Northern Ireland is at its worst, and there have been the worst riots, since 1981. The Government's appeasement policies have led to the release of over 400 hard-line terrorists, including murderers; to the placing of terrorists in government; and probably worst of all, to the wanton destruction of the Northern Ireland police force. They have not led to any disarmament on either side. They have not--contrary to what Patten intended--taken the politics out of policing. They have not led to a united community police force but to quite the opposite: massive polarisation of the communities.
	We are here tonight because the nationalists and the republicans have not signed up to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act which flowed from Patten and it would appear that they have no intention of doing so in the near future.
	I believe that the Government have lost control. The political situation is deadlocked while the republicans increase their demands and the RUC, having lost 25 per cent of its more experienced men and women resulting from the Patten pay-offs and more than 200 men injured in the recent riots mostly organised and co-ordinated by the paramilitaries, struggles to maintain law and order.
	Its struggle is made doubly difficult by the restraints placed on it by the glib phrases used by human rights lawyers, the ridiculous business concerning the firing of plastic baton rounds in self defence and the power of the police ombudsman. The Minister will remember only too well, I hope, the points I made to him at Report stage of the Act concerning the powers of the police ombudsman in this respect.
	I heard today through the press that the chief constable has let it be known that he intends to retire in the course of the next year. In the light of that information and the current state of play with regard to policing in Northern Ireland, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten the House in some small way about how the Government propose to improve the law and order situation.
	I sincerely hope that they do not propose, as I read in yesterday's Sunday Times, to put on offer an indemnity law amounting to a general amnesty to include all those involved in Omagh and other recent atrocities. This, I suggest, will do little to please Sinn Fein, especially if it includes Bloody Sunday, and will infuriate law-abiding people everywhere. How many more times are we to see the rule of law set aside for political expediency? Given the widespread concern about the matter, when the noble and learned Lord responds will he take the opportunity to give the House an assurance that those reports are without foundation?
	I know that the noble and learned Lord is not a member of the Northern Ireland Office team of Ministers and so he may find this difficult. We need a police service in Northern Ireland which is able to get on with the job without any operational interference from politicians and which has the capacity--we spoke about the resources last week and the shortage of funds--to combat crime in all its guises including terrorism. We on this side of the House have not been impressed with the Government's record in Northern Ireland so far. While we continue to wish them well in their endeavours in Northern Ireland, in order to maintain the bipartisan agreement positively we shall expect more adherence to the democratic processes. Perhaps Ministers will also listen to the advice of those from around your Lordships' House who have lived and worked in Northern Ireland for many years. However, I am afraid that that is probably too much to expect.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his explanation of the order I have one question and one observation.
	Bearing in mind that by definition police trainees are probationers, is it a good idea for them to have an exemption from having individual licences to bear arms? I understand why the regular police have the exemption but bearing in mind that those trainees are probationers I wonder whether it is a wholly wise move.
	It is gratifying that a significant number of Roman Catholics have been applying to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is the greatest pity that the political leaders of the Catholic and nationalist community have not followed their example by joining the Policing Board. It is high time that the chicken and egg fandango (if I may mix my metaphors) is short circuited so that the Patten proposals can be fully implemented and an acceptable policing system implemented. That is important. One would hope that the SDLP at least would agree now to join the Policing Board. We on these Benches have adopted a pro-Patten stance, and fully backed it. At this particularly crucial time, we would expect to see some move on the part of the nationalist community in that regard.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I support the order, which makes a number of amendments to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The fact that the order is required at this time should come as little surprise to many of your Lordships, who will remember the passage through the House of that legislation, which implemented the recommendations of the Patten report. Your Lordships will also remember that many of those recommendations were flawed and inadvisable and caused great offence to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland. I assure your Lordships that those strong feelings have yet to wane.
	Unfortunately, the effects are beginning to tell. Noble Lords may have read in the newspapers recently that more than 970 RUC officers have left the force since the beginning of this year. That includes many senior officers. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that, at 31st March this year, the RUC was supposed to have encompassed 8,488 regular officers and 3,202 full-time reservists. The actual numbers were 7,810 regulars and 2,496 reservists. That is a shortfall of 1,384 officers from establishment. Those numbers have fallen even further since then, with the departure of another 594 officers. To put those figures into a mainland context, if the same proportion of shortfall occurred in the Met, that force would be down 4,483 officers. If ever figures were able to tell a story, that drop of 1,978 RUC officers does so. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is fast coming dangerously close to being a police service in crisis.
	I believe that your Lordships will share my sense of regret that Article 2 of the order, which substitutes the Police Authority for Northern Ireland for the new Policing Board, has proved necessary. I hope too that your Lordships will be in no doubt as to why that is the case. It is because representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour Party have refused to take their seats on the board, seemingly in the hope of squeezing out yet further concessions to their objectives on policing and other areas during the negotiations, which the Government claim reached their climax at Weston Park just over a week ago.
	We await the outcome of those talks in the form of a so-called package of measures, which our Government are currently in the process of drawing up with the Irish Government. It is rumoured that a "take it or leave it" package is due to be given to the pro-agreement parties by the end of this week, although it is proving difficult to get confirmation of that fact.
	In addition, I should like to highlight what I understand to be meant by "pro-agreement parties". To the mind of any sensible person--perhaps presumptuously, I like to include myself in that category--"pro-agreement parties" means parties in favour of the agreement. That means the whole agreement, not just the parts that we want.
	I was chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party in April 1998, when the Belfast agreement was assented to. Only recently have I given up that rather testing position. As anyone who follows these matters will be only too well aware, throughout my period in office my party experienced difficulties with many aspects of that agreement. However, despite those problems, we held in there and stuck the course; we fought for that agreement and we popped the bitter pills. But we did so because we believed that what we were doing was right not only for ourselves but for all the people of Northern Ireland.
	We could so easily have taken the easy way out. Had we done so, my tenure as party chairman would have been far less testing, as, indeed, would have been that of David Trimble, my party leader. But we took the more difficult option. We did everything that we could to implement the aspects of the agreement over which we had power. We have now come to the crunch--the end game, to use a phrase which has become popular with the media in recent weeks.
	Two major stumbling blocks remain, if the agreement is to be fully implemented. The first is obviously that of decommissioning. For what it is worth, I wish to call yet again tonight on the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, to put away their weapons beyond use, permanently and without delay. As democrats, my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party and I shall continue to make that plea until it happens. Let us hope that it happens soon, if not now.
	The second major stumbling block is the refusal of Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP to move forward on policing. Again, for what it is worth, I call on the republicans to fulfil their obligations under the agreement, which they claim to support, and to assent to the new arrangements, including those concerning the Police Board. If anything, it is now more vital than ever for the SDLP to climb down from its lofty high wire and nominate to the new Police Board. In doing so, it will leave the republican movement more isolated than it has been for many years. Inevitably, as party leader, the onus for that will be on John Hume. Since he was announced as joint recipient, people have called often on David Trimble to demonstrate his worthiness as a Nobel Peace Prize winner and statesman. I believe that he has done so on more occasions than I can even begin to remember. It is now time for his fellow Nobel laureate, John Hume, to do the same.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, with great respect. I have watched from afar with admiration the stand taken by the party of which he was chairman and the price which it has had to pay for that, not least in the recent general election.
	We are here tonight, albeit at half-past 11 on the penultimate day of this Session, not to resume for another three months, because the Government have got into trouble with their timetable. No one who has served as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland makes a party point about that; we have all been there. However, while there is no argument about the need for these orders, there is plenty of anxiety, and, therefore, room for argument, about the reasons that have made them necessary. Yet we have not been offered the opportunity to debate in this House those reasons, which are grave.
	When this matter was made the subject of moderate complaint by my noble friend Lord Glentoran on the Front Bench, I am afraid that I heard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that he was not surprised that we had been refused a debate. Either the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that they were not surprised.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that that is totally unfair and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that he misheard.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither of us said a word.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, of course I withdraw that at once. I can only say that I heard those words from somewhere and I was rather shocked. I find that I am not alone on this side. I accept at once the assertion that has just been made.
	At any rate, I am surprised. It is extremely important that whenever a government get into difficulties in Northern Ireland they should come to this House and the other place and say what is happening. In my experience, having got into quite a lot of trouble in my time, I always received a sympathetic and informed hearing. If the Government want to carry Parliament with them, they should do that.
	In the other place the Minister of State, Jane Kennedy, said:
	"In spite of the Government's considerable efforts to bring about the necessary agreement on outstanding police issues to enable the Policing Board to be established, it is not yet in place; nor is it likely to be in time to be consulted before the regulations for the trainees are needed. It is planned that the trainees will be appointed in September. The order accordingly substitutes the Police Authority for Northern Ireland for the board for the purposes of consultation".--[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/01; col. 484.]
	We quite understand why that is necessary, but we need to know--this is our only opportunity to discuss this matter in the next three months--what those efforts were. What have been,
	"the Government's considerable efforts to bring about the necessary agreement"?
	What have been the sticking points? What ground was put forward by republicans and nationalists for not agreeing to the board's role? We need answers to those questions. Why will not even the SDLP take up its entitlement for nominations? The Government must have been told the reasons but Parliament has not been.
	Whatever the viewpoint of republicans and nationalists, what do the Government make of the RUC's assessment of the shortfall from its need? That was referred to in the debate in the lower House. I do not know whether it is accurate or not but it was said in that debate that the RUC estimates that,
	"there will be a shortfall of about
	117 million in the money that they require to carry out fully the work expected of them in the Province".--[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/01; col. 487.] At a time when the RUC is once again in the middle--it is facing violence from paramilitaries from both sides of the community--it is, I venture to suggest, enormously important that it does not feel that it is being denied the basic requirements for its duty to all people in Northern Ireland in order to keep the peace. Do the Government accept that there is a shortfall? What is their response to the point made in the lower House? That point was raised not by the Minister but by a Back-Bencher.
	Other points were made in the lower House that were extremely worrying. It was reported that in,
	"1997-98, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee noted that
	'the major reason preventing young Roman Catholics coming forward to join the RUC is the fear of violence which would be offered towards them and to members of their family'".
	That is beyond question. But what do the Government say about the matter? Have those fears of violence diminished or do we now believe that that is really the reason why people are not coming forward in sufficient numbers? I welcome what has been said about the increase in the number of people coming forward from the Roman Catholic community. What is the Government's view, however, of intimidation? We know perfectly well how rife that is in the civilian community.
	In the debate in the lower House it was pointed out that, "the Gaelic Athletic Association"--refuses to repeal,
	"its offensive and discriminatory rule 21".--[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/01; col. 489.]
	That rule stops members of the RUC from taking part in Gaelic football matches. That is a really important symbolic matter. Can the Government report any progress in that regard? How do they explain why that ban continues?
	I shall not go on at this time of night. There are other matters that other noble Lords will wish to raise, but I state with considerable force that it is a great pity that at this stage we have been denied a debate on Northern Ireland. That denial suggests a rather contemptuous attitude towards Parliament.
	I hope that we can all be relied upon to take a grown-up and sensible view at what is always a sensitive time in the negotiations which are taking place. But we need to be told what is happening. I have too much experience of responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland to believe that any government are faced at any time with simple choices. No government ever are. But equally, I know from experience that any government who preside over continuing horrifying violence in Northern Ireland, coupled with cynical goalpost-moving by those who refuse to start giving up their arms, need always to take Parliament into their confidence. If they do not do that, that serves only to add fuel to suspicions that there is something disreputable in the offing. There is already far too much fuel for that suspicion.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order. I realise that it is necessary. But sadly, it brings more uncertainty to the running of our police force and, therefore, leads to a reduction in its efficiency. That is for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and several other noble Lords.
	I am not talking about local crime in my area, to which, no doubt, the Minister would tell me that we all have to put up with a certain amount of crime but that members of the police force do all they can. I wish to draw attention to the recent reduction in activities which the police used to carry out. That is due to a lack of manpower and finance and to the recent reforms in the police force, introduced by this Government. I am not talking about speeding and normal every-day crimes. I wish to talk about terrorist-related crime. Over the past 25 years, the police have been expected to carry out certain duties in that regard. They no longer find themselves capable of performing those duties, but those duties still require attention.
	I must declare an interest because my brother-in-law is the Northern Ireland general manager of Securicor Cash Services, which I now use as an example. That company undertakes 85 per cent of all major cash movements in the Province. I am sure that noble Lords and the Minister will understand that the very fabric of business life, which is what has held Northern Ireland together for so long, relies on such a service. The company has 65 of those armoured blue vehicles that one sees around the streets operating every day from bank to bank, bank to business and in reverse. It provides a really important service. I am using it as an example, but it is not the only example. However, it is an example which should demonstrate to noble Lords that, in this case, I am not worried about County Fermanagh, since County Fermanagh is perhaps one of the poorer regions; I am interested in the fabric which holds Northern Ireland together at present.
	In the calendar year 2000, there were 30 attacks or hits when the cash in those vehicles was stolen in the Belfast and larger Belfast area. This year, there have been 40 such attacks already. There were seven last week and three on Friday. The total amount of money that has been lost is £500,000 this year. The individual amounts of money being carried by those vehicles is important because below £100,000 per load, security firms are not insured. Therefore, all that money has been lost in loads below £100,000. In England or in London, that would be headline news: "Armed hijack of Securicor van in the Wandsworth Road" or--dare I say it?--"outside Westminster". The Minister should not dismiss that because it is taking place and it is tangible. I understand that the Minister is not a member of the Northern Ireland Office. However, representations have been made to the Security Minister in Northern Ireland in the last week or so. I understand that in the next couple of days the director of security for Securicor will make a representation to Mr Blunkett. So it is an important issue.
	So far this year 15,000 sick days have been recorded among the 240 staff. They have had it. The official response from a member of the RUC has been, "We can give it only passing attention". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will understand that previously there was never a case of a Securicor van, or a van containing anything of value, travelling without an escort. This is not an additional task; this is not riot control. What has happened over the past 30 years has now ceased and that goes for many parts of Northern Ireland.
	I do not ask for support for an uneconomical business. The business may become uneconomical, but I assure the House that no other business will take up that task if such an undertaking cannot be run economically. Normally somebody more efficient will take over; but no one will operate such a business in Northern Ireland. This is a crisis. I have not given that example because of my declared interest, but because it indicates what is really happening.
	Recently, in another place, the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister said that whatever appropriate support the RUC required would be provided. I ask the Minister where is that support? Can he do something about it now?
	One other issue is the morale of the RUC. Many people will no doubt say, "He's from Northern Ireland, from the basically unionist population and of course the morale of the police is low". Recently I have spoken to policemen in the street. Their morale has to be really bad for them to admit that outside their force. I have been a member of various organisations including the Ulster Defence Regiment--as it then was--and low morale hit us. We talked about it within the force, but we would never admit to someone outside the force that the morale was bad. The morale of the RUC is seriously low. The Minister's answer may be that the Northern Ireland people cannot agree, so where do we go? I accept that that is the situation, but the Government have to do what they can to maintain the security so that there can be a peace process with the result that society can live with itself.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, from what has been said already this evening, the situation in Northern Ireland is not, at the moment, improving. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has described a situation of armed robbery, which, if it took place on the mainland, would be regarded as a crisis. There would be calls for debates, the press would be full of it and there would be great public anger. However, this evening we have this order that we all agree should go through, but no proper debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland.
	What is the situation in your Lordships' House? Just look around. Perhaps I should spell it out so that it is recorded in the official record: three Members of Her Majesty's Government on the Front Bench; not a single supporter behind them--not one; two Cross-Benchers from Northern Ireland; half a dozen or so Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. We are discussing a crisis of confidence in the policing of Northern Ireland, a haemorrhage of police officers on a scale which, if it were to take place, as has been said, in any police force on the mainland, would cause outrage.Are we supposed to shrug and say, "Well, that is the way it is"? We are not even graced this evening by the presence of my noble friend Lord Patten, who could tell us how successful his reforms and proposed reforms have been. It would have been interesting to hear his views on why we have this haemorrhage of police officers.
	My noble friend Lord Glentoran was brief but to the point. I have only one disagreement with him, and it is a serious one. He referred to the Government's policy of appeasement. I have never found this Government guilty of appeasement of Sinn Fein/IRA. Collaboration, yes; appeasement, no. Collaboration because their objective is precisely the same as that of Sinn Fein/IRA. It is a united Ireland, under the rule of Dublin, by what is grandly called consent--the consent of a people left without an adequate police force, at the mercy of a terrorist army which has not been required to give up a single weapon, bullet, gun, or one pound of explosive.
	We have just endured the interminable communiques and rumours from the discussions between the parties, the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, which appear to have got nowhere. If they had got anywhere, we might have had a statement to that effect. We are now supposed to go away for two or three months in the expectation that things are going to get better. I doubt that they will.
	I should like to hear from the Minister--and I have every sympathy with him, for he is not in the Northern Ireland Office and can only read from the brief that his officials will no doubt hand to him in a few moments--precisely what strength he expects the RUC to reach by the time we return in October. What would he regard as a crisis? Below what level would the Government act? There must be some view on the part of the Government. What does he expect to happen? Does he expect the numbers to begin to rise again, or is he complacent? Not he. But I do not want to put it in those personal terms. Are Her Majesty's Government simply complacent about this fall, or will they do something to arrest it?
	It is a scandal, it is a shame, it is to be deplored, that Parliament and the Province of Northern Ireland should be treated in this way. It will not be forgotten, either in Northern Ireland or here. It seems to me quite extraordinary that in recent weeks we have been treated to the trumpeting of Ministers on the success of bringing Mr Milosevic to trial as a terrorist, when they have put terrorists into government in this Kingdom.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we have to support this order because I can quite see that, given the haemorrhage of experienced officers, we shall need recruits. After Omagh, the House was recalled to introduce measures to deal with the terrorists. It has proved impossible to bring them to justice. I presume that the amnesty that is said to be under consideration is intended to solve that little problem.
	We now have a potentially serious crisis and this is our only opportunity to discuss it. That is a scandal in itself. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether as part of the continuing negotiations there are plans to offer concessions next month to the further demands of Sinn Fein/IRA which could include the admission of former terrorists to serve in the RUC? That will keep many experienced officers in the force! Will there be more retrospective Bloody-Sunday-type inquiries aimed at the RUC or are the amnesties intended to reverse that? Will powers be given to local police authorities to sub-contract?
	Is it intended to offer such further concessions even though Sinn Fein and the SDLP have, by refusing to nominate their representatives to the police authority, made it impossible to create the new police force and have left the power with the Secretary of State and the chief constable, making this order necessary?
	The Minister will say that he cannot discuss what is being negotiated and it is difficult to argue against that. But I believe that we need to hear from him that the Government will not make such concessions before coming back to Parliament to amend the legislation in due process so that the issues can be debated. We cannot have a situation in which an Act which took months to pass through this House can be lightly amended because it happens to help the negotiators.
	The Government must surely recognise that in all the years since the Belfast agreement was signed there has been one-way traffic, concession after concession to the IRA, and nothing in return. How much longer is the farce of the decommissioning commission to continue when it is nothing but a fig-leaf for the IRA? We should face facts and abolish a body whose existence has enabled the IRA to play its own game and to give absolutely nothing. Why do we never debate the reports of that commission? The latest, published on 30th June, admits that the commission has been unable to ascertain how the IRA will put its weapons beyond use--and they have been talking for three years. It never will learn that from the IRA because the IRA will never do so. It has always said it will never do so.
	In the light of that undoubted fact, can the Government really contemplate further concessions designed to weaken the already severely depleted forces of law and order and to destroy the RUC at a time of great instability? The IRA, having gained all it can politically, is already returning to what it knows best--violence. The Government should have recognised that long ago and if they had done so they would have been respected by the people of Northern Ireland and by us. Instead, they have persisted in giving more and more and that is nothing less than a betrayal of the unfortunate people of Northern Ireland who trusted them. There was never a better example of the saying that the floor of hell is paved with good intentions.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I shall be brief because the hour is extremely late. I am deeply concerned about some of the information that has passed across the House during our debate on the order. First, it is good to know that there has been an increase in the number of recruits. However, we are told that some 25 per cent of the most senior and experienced men in the force have left as a result of the Patten hand-outs. Secondly, we are told that the chief constable is to resign.
	Any organisation which haemorrhages 25 per cent of its most experienced people, plus its leader, in a short space of time will be in serious difficulty. Are the Government really thinking the matter through? If so, have they come forward with ideas about what they can do; for example, seconding to the RUC senior officers from forces in this country? I can foresee a deficit or gap in experience at the highest levels and I believe that only mischief can come from that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. This debate is about an order which everybody appears to agree should be approved. The noble Lord complained that there had been no debate in this House about Northern Ireland. Plainly, that is not a matter to be dealt with here but in the context of a complaint about business to be conducted on the Floor of the House.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and other noble Lords said that no concessions of any kind should be made. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said what the answer would be. The answer is that it is not sensible to refer to the content of negotiation. The noble Baroness said she hoped that we would come before this House if any changes were to be made to the Police Act. We would have to do so because any changes to the Act should be made only with the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, then referred to the "wanton destruction of the Northern Ireland police force". While we take into account what is said in this House, we take greater note of the observations of the Chief Constable of the RUC. In a report of an interview yesterday he said:
	"I think the new structures will work".
	He went on to say that arguments by politicians would not,
	"debilitate our ability to deal with terrorism, to deal with public disorder and to deal with criminality".
	The changes to modernise policing are not about concessions to any group. As has been made clear by the Secretary of State in another place, and made repeatedly clear in this Chamber, there will be no compromises over security. That has always remained the position of the Government. We take the advice of the Chief Constable on the pace of change in the police service, which is security dependent. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, knows, the Secretary of State is in constant contact with the Chief Constable to ensure that the RUC and the new police service are operationally capable.
	Many comments have been made this evening about the number of officers who leave the RUC. Those familiar with Northern Ireland affairs will be aware that the numbers who leave suggest some mystery. The severance arrangements which lead to people at the top leaving the service are part of Patten. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is aware, those arrangements are being managed by the Chief Constable, who decides on the pace of change. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made clear--other noble Lords have also referred to it--this matter must be looked at in the context of the recruitment campaign which is under way. I should make it clear that the Government have total confidence in the Chief Constable. While we listen to what is said in debates like this, we listen particularly to his advice on the security situation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, was the only noble Lord to ask a question relating to the order. He asked whether it was wise for trainees to be the recipients of waivers in respect of firearms. The position is that that puts them in the same position as British constables before the Act; namely, trainees are entitled to use firearms, but they will not be issued with service issue firearms until they have been trained in their safe handling and use and, in particular, the public safety aspect. It is a totally legitimate question to ask, but we believe that, having weighed it up, we have come to the right solution.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in a very impressive passage in his speech, referred to the sacrifices that the Ulster Unionist Party had made in continuing to support the Good Friday agreement. He described his own period as chairman, and said that it would have been a lot easier if that party had not supported the Good Friday agreement. But the noble Lord made it clear that in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland the party had decided to support the agreement. My understanding is that that party continues to support the agreement despite all the difficulties, many of which have been referred to in the course of the debate. As a government we are in complete agreement that the Good Friday agreement should be supported.
	We also agree with two further points made by the noble Lord; namely, that the time has come for all paramilitaries to decommission their arms and for all the nationalist parties to support the new policing arrangements.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to the problems of armed robbery, the security firm and morale in the police force. Again I refer back to the quote from the Chief Constable who specifically states that the RUC is capable of dealing with terrorism and criminality at the moment. Although we take note of what the noble Viscount has said, we also obviously take security advice from the Chief Constable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that the Government were collaborating with Sinn Fein, not appeasing it. He said that we shared the same aim; namely, that we want a united Ireland. That was completely wrong and based on nothing at all. The position is that the Government wish normality in Northern Ireland. I believe that that is what the vast majority of the Northern Irish people want.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is no longer the policy of his party and Government that they work for the union of Ireland by consent?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is the position of this Government that we wish normality in Northern Ireland. If there is to be a union, it will only be on the basis of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That has always been the position of the Government. I deal with the points made--I think that at this hour the appropriate course is for me to continue--

Lord Tebbit: There is plenty of time, my Lords.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may continue with my point. I deal with the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. The noble and learned Lord referred to the £117 million figure referred to in another place. That is a figure referred to in the annual report of the Chief Constable. The noble and learned Lord said that he had concerns about that figure. The Secretary of State has made it clear in another place, as was made clear in this House, that the proper resources would be made available to the Chief Constable to ensure that he could properly police the Province. How much they were was a matter of discussion between the Northern Ireland Office and the Chief Constable in the normal way.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred primarily to the point about concessions. I think that I have dealt with those points adequately.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he neglected to answer my question. My question was: is it no longer the policy of his party and his government to work for the union of Ireland by consent?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it has always been the position of the Government that the principle of consent applies. It is a matter for the Northern Irish people to decide. I have answered the noble Lord's question.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, with respect, the Minister has not answered the question. The question is whether it is the policy of the Government that Ireland should be united by the consent of the people of Northern Ireland or whether it is not their policy. If he would just give me an answer yes or no, it would save him prevaricating.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the Minister finishes, the noble and learned Lord rather dismissed a great deal of what we said about Northern Ireland because he said, "The Chief Constable says 'this' or "that'". I should like to hear him say that he really takes note of what we say and that he believes that what we are saying is not meant to injure him or the Government, but is meant to sustain the police force in Northern Ireland. I should like to hear him say that he believes that what we have said--from my point of view about the increase in armed robberies--are facts, and that he will report back the fact that in this House that is a genuine concern.
	There is another point about firearms licences for recruits which did not come out there but might in the reading of it. That is that recruits can get weapons without having firearms certificates. That applies only to police weapons for training and not to sporting or any other weapons. They are under exactly the same jurisdiction as anybody else for any weapon other than that which is withdrawn from an armoury for a purpose. I mention that so that people do not say that police recruits in Northern Ireland do not need firearms certificates; they do, for everything other than service weapons.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I accept what the noble Viscount has said. That is obviously right.
	Perhaps I may deal with the first point put to me. I hope that noble Lords will not think that I was being dismissive in any way about the comments made in the course of our debate; I was not. I have sought simply to put them into the context of what the Chief Constable has said, which is an important source of information. Of course I shall report back what has been said during the course of our debate and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place will read the account.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Statement and Budget Report

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That this House takes note with approval of Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2001-02 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will know that each year the Government are required to send information to the European Commission setting out our main economic policy measures. The procedure is set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the EC Treaty, which relate to the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, Convergence and Stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure.
	The purpose of these reports is to help to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty. Those are set out in Article 2 of the treaty and include non-inflationary economic growth, respecting the environment, a high level of employment and social protection and raising the standard of living and quality of life, consistent with the Government's approach to economic policy.
	Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the Government report sent to the Commission for this purpose.
	The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Financial Statement and Budget Report, brought together in the government report Budget 2001. Tonight we have the opportunity to debate this document, since this material will form the basis of the information that we send to the Commission. Sharing the information in the Budget documents with our European partners allows us to influence Europe, bringing employment and growth to Britain and other member states.
	The Budget describes the Government's strategy to raise Britain's national economic potential and achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment, with rising living standards for all. Budget 2001 will help build a stronger economic future for Britain through reforms that will put work, enterprise and families first. The key elements of the Government's economic strategy as set out in the Budget report are: to deliver macroeconomic stability to provide a platform for long-term sustainable growth and employment; to meet the productivity challenge through promoting competition, enterprise and innovation, skills, investment and public sector productivity; to increase employment opportunity for all; to ensure fairness for families and communities; and to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come, by protecting the environment.
	The Government's first economic priority when coming into office in 1997 was to deliver stability for the long term, recognising that economic stability is a precondition for achieving our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment. They therefore introduced the new macroeconomic policy framework, based on the principles of transparency, responsibility and accountability, and which is already promoting economic stability by delivering low inflation and sound public finances.
	We are already seeing the rewards of the new macroeconomic framework. The UK economy grew by 3 per cent last year, in line with our forecasts, RPIX inflation averaged just over 2 per cent and unemployment fell to its lowest levels since the 1970s. Inflation in the UK has been significantly less volatile since 1997, lower for longer than at any time since the 1960s, and in line with our target. Now, long-term interest rates are at around their lowest levels for 35 years, reflecting a sustained reduction in the level of inflation expectations.
	Since the Budget, growth in the US economy has slowed, broadly in line with our expectations, and industrial production is falling across the world's major economies. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research recently noted that in the first quarter of this year, imports actually fell in five of the G7 economies. The exceptions were Italy and the United Kingdom. As a highly open economy, the United Kingdom cannot expect to remain immune from these global developments.
	But the Government's new macroeconomic policy framework leaves the United Kingdom better placed than before to cope with developments in the world economy. The Government are building a stronger economic future for Britain. It gives a better deal for the people of Britain. It will help us to meet our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment, and a fairer society for all. These are the right economic polices for Britain. They are also in line with the objectives of the European Union.
	Approving the Motion will enable the United Kingdom to meet our treaty obligations, to provide information and to participate fully in the important process of multilateral surveillance and economic co-operation, as provided for in Articles 99 and 104 of the Treaty. I hope that the House will support the Motion. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note with approval of Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2001-02 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Newby: My Lords, whatever the hour of day or night, it is always a pleasure to hear the Minister describe the economic Nirvana which will be Britain after a few more years of a Labour Government. However, I am sure that even he will accept that, if that desirable goal is to be achieved, the Government will need to meet their expenditure targets. I should like to ask the noble Lord today whether the Government are on target for meeting their expenditure targets for the current financial year, or whether they will underspend. If, as I fear the answer may be, they will underspend, what will be the extent of that underspend.
	There are major imponderables in regard to the Government's expenditure plans for the future. First, as was teased out during the election campaign, it is unclear what the Government's expenditure plans will be for the second half of the Parliament. After the growth which is currently envisaged, will the public services have reached such a pinnacle of perfection that no further significant increases will be necessary? If further increases in expenditure are thought to be desirable--not least in order to meet European averages in some areas--how will the Government fund any such further increases?
	Secondly, what is the Government's latest view about the effects of the slowing down of the economy, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, on revenue receipts? If, as is highly likely, receipts fall below, or do not grow in line with, projections, how will such a shortfall be made up? What combination of tax increases, increased borrowing or cuts in public expenditure would the Government have in mind? We know, again from the election campaign, that they have ruled out the fairest form of tax increases--namely, income tax--but if they are not to do that, what other options are the Government contemplating?
	I should like to speak briefly about the fact that this debate is taking place now. It is clearly highly unsatisfactory. The documents under consideration were published in March. We should have debated them then, or soon after their publication, or, frankly, not at all. The way in which this House debates the Government's tax and expenditure plans is ludicrous. We tend to debate the Finance Bill for a desultory hour just before the House rises for the summer. We are now doing the same with this debate. I trust that we may see some improvement in the next Session, with a debate on the broad principles of the Budget--possibly on the lines of the Motion that we are debating tonight--shortly after the Budget itself. Having failed to achieve that in this Session, it is perhaps not surprising that not a single Back-Bencher--nor even the principal Opposition spokesman--is willing to stay to debate it so late in the day. We must do better next time.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in delivering the Government's assessment of the state of the United Kingdom economy. Before turning to the substance of the debate, I hope that your Lordships will allow me one small indulgence. I believe that this is the first formal opportunity that we have had in this House to congratulate the Chancellor upon his impending good news. I hope therefore that the Minister will convey to his right honourable friend our warmest best wishes and heartiest congratulations.
	The hour is late. It is the penultimate day of the Session. Much as I enjoy our verbal jousts, it is a little rum that those on the respective Front Benches are the only speakers in the debate. Indeed, other than the virtuous patience of the Deputy Speaker and the noble Baroness the Government Whip, there are no other noble Lords in the Chamber to appreciate our efforts.
	I make no apology for repeating what has been a constant refrain from these Benches in recent years. Here, I echo the resentments--I interpret them as such--of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Why do the Government persist in scheduling these debates in the inconvenient backwaters of the parliamentary schedule?
	Having got that off my chest, I wish to focus on three issues in the context of the Motion. First, the Government's continued rosy assessment of the economy, notwithstanding ever-increasing warnings of an economic slow-down, possibly even a recession, is troubling--the more so given the curiously mixed messages that seem to be emanating from the Treasury.
	We are here today, in theory, to approve the government report that is sent to the European Commission for the purpose of ensuring that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the Maastricht Treaty. I say "in theory" because there is something of a credibility gap between the terms of the Motion and the text of the speech of the noble Lord's colleague in another place only a week or so ago. Perhaps I may be forgiven for imagining that that had little enough to do with the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993? Indeed, far from taking advantage of the opportunity--as the Minister failed to do tonight--to comment on the Chancellor's five economic tests for entry to the euro, the speech in another place was in terms a regurgitation of the Red Book. This is bizarre. The Budget was debated extensively in another place with no formal chance for this House to contribute. Yet here we are, in the dog days of the Session, working to an entirely different heading, and the Minister in terms invites us to focus on the Budget. Bizarre!
	On page 1 of the Budget report, the Government state the aims of their economic strategy as:
	"delivering macroeconomic stability; meeting the productivity challenge; increasing employment opportunity for all; ensuring fairness for families and communities; and protecting the environment".
	That is all good and well. We on these Benches do not dissent from this. These aims are not in question. What is at issue are the means by which they are to be delivered and understanding where the UK economy stands as of this moment. Too often, the picture painted by the Treasury is one where all is glowing and golden in the UK's economic garden. There is nothing wrong.
	However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted in the Sunday Times last week as saying--and the noble Lord repeated it tonight:
	"There are risks in the world economy at the moment. The downturn in the world economy has not reached its bottom. It is in many ways far more severe than we expected a few months ago because it has spread from America, in particular to Germany, and, of course, we have no growth at all in Japan".
	We should perhaps be thankful for small mercies. At least Mr Brown is indulging in a little more economic realism instead of repeating the mantra that boom and bust has been banished.
	In the same vein, the Ernst & Young Item Club has said in its latest report that,
	"Unless the pound falls back and there is a general improvement in profitability, employment will be the next to turn down. If that happens, the housing market and the High Street will follow the rest of the economy into recession".
	In the meantime, contradictory messages continue to spew forth from the Treasury.
	The fact is that the world in which we live is economically risky and difficult at present. We must therefore ask ourselves whether the UK economy is structured to resist these risks and difficulties. Is it not time to stop being--dare I say it?--somewhat complacent about the condition of our economy and to start addressing some of the problems that it would be wholly unwise to continue to ignore? This would be a much more responsible way to respond to the requirements of Section 5 of the 1993 Act.
	I turn to my second point; namely, the continuing growth of imbalances in the UK economy. In April this year unemployment levels in the UK as a whole averaged 5 per cent. But we should bear in mind that this disguises vast regional differences. By way of example, unemployment in the south-east was 3.3 per cent, while in the north-east it was more than double, at 7.7 per cent. Disparities like this were repeated throughout the regions. These may not, of themselves, be too worrying in economic terms. However, it has been a long-established Treasury doctrine that a principal purpose of regional policy is to even out these imbalances, rather than to create wealth in itself. That being so, it has to be the case that the Government and Treasury Ministers should be deeply concerned, if only because the evidence is that regional policy is not working adequately in economic terms. Perhaps I may put it in another way: how can it be credible for the Treasury to maintain a policy that is delivering an effect that is the reverse of its intention?
	Regrettably, the current imbalances in the economy are not limited to regional variation. We also have a two-speed, perhaps even multi-speed, economy. Production industries grew in the last quarter by 0.7 per cent, at a time when, as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made clear in another place as recently as 16th July, the economy as a whole is growing at more than 2 per cent and the service sector by 3.7 per cent; in other words, the manufacturing sector could be interpreted as being perilously close to recession. Delving into this a little more deeply, the Government have presided over--I do not necessarily say "contributed to"--a decimation in the new economy in recent months. Try telling a farmer or a guesthouse owner that their businesses are vibrant pictures of health at the moment.
	In that context, the Ernst & Young Item Club predicts that the manufacturing "rot"--its word not mine--will spread to the rest of the economy if the pound stays at its high levels against the euro. As I have already mentioned, the club suggests that, in such circumstances, unemployment would rise, hitting the housing market and shops, thereby dragging down the whole economy. And yet, exchange rate adjustment brings with it very serious risks of rampant inflation.
	As a form of confirmation, Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors argues that there will be a "further slowdown in the economy" and that,
	"manufacturing looks pretty grim and the economy is deteriorating quite concerningly and worryingly".
	The fact is that there are huge, and dangerous, imbalances within the constituent parts of the economy. The relevance of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in this respect should not be underestimated. We on these Benches do not suggest that the panacea for these problems is easy. We do maintain that they exist and that the Government should, at the very least, begin to address them.
	I turn to the third issue that I wish to examine. The state of the UK economy in the context of the euro is, or rather should be, the underlying purpose of the Minister's Motion. An immediate question comes to mind. In so far as the analysis that I have outlined thus far is correct--and, after all, far from being derived solely from these Benches, it is supported by a number of highly reputable sources--should not the Government be delivering a report to the European Commission in like terms? I should not anticipate the noble Lord to concur with every dot and comma that I have said. But, on the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, indeed, the noble Lord, everything is not all sweetness and light. Is it not important that our European partners be made aware of this?
	Perhaps more importantly, as I have already said, this should have been an opportunity to have a serious, informative and grown-up debate about our economy in relation to the euro, about convergence or otherwise, and about where we stand in relation to the five economic tests. Indeed, the thought occurs to me that the Section 5 provision was introduced as a eurosceptic amendment to the 1993 Act. As such it was, I believe, actively supported by the party of the Benches opposite. In other words, at that time, the noble Lord and his colleagues welcomed the opportunity to air these matters not only in another place but also more widely, specifically in this House. That, in terms, argues in favour of your Lordships having a more pro-active role to play in scrutiny of economic matters. Why, I wonder, has the Government's position changed so dramatically? Indeed, why--I return to the point--do we persist in debating these matters at such inconvenient times?
	I conclude with one small thought. Far be it from me to offer unsolicited advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. None the less, if his impending bundle of joy happens to be a son, he might wish to call him Andrew, in honour of the Minister. However, in the circumstances, I really do suggest that, if a daughter, he resists any temptation that he may have to call her Prudence.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Chancellor will be happy to read what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said about the impending addition to his family. I am sure that he will take extremely seriously the noble Earl's advice with regard to names.
	I did not say any of the things which were imputed to me by either the noble Lord, Lord Newby, or the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about nirvana and pinnacles of perfection. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, talked about a rosy assessment, glowing and golden and a vibrant picture of health. I noted all those comments as they were said, but they do not correspond to anything that I said. I hope that what I said in introducing the Motion was entirely realistic and pragmatic. We do not believe that we are insulated from the world economy. We have never believed that. We do not think that there are not dangers in the slowdown, particularly in the United States, but also, more recently, in some European countries. We do believe that we have been completely realistic and accurate in our forecasts of what is likely to happen in the world economy and what the effects are likely to be on the economy of this country. I hope that I can add a little more flesh to that view.
	I do not accept that it is wrong for us to present in response to our Section 5 obligations the report which we give to the British people at the time of the Budget. I should have thought we would be open to the accusation that we were speaking with forked tongues if we were to say one thing to the people of this country in our Budget documentation and another thing to the European Union. I believe that the European Union deserves no more and no less than to have the considered view of this Government as it is presented to the people of this country. This year, as in previous years, we have used the Budget documentation as the basis for our report to the European Union for the purposes of Section 5.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether our expenditure targets were likely to result in an underspend. I am sure he knows this or he would not have asked the question. It is true that total managed expenditure in the previous financial year was £4.5 billion below the 2001 Budget projection. However, the outturns for individual government department spending in 2000-01--we do not yet have a way of describing that properly--have not yet been published. They will be published in the public expenditure White Paper. There has been some underspending by departments, but that is perfectly understandable in view of the Government's drive for value for money and to avoid the wasteful year-end spending surges which were a feature of the past. As we move to resource accounting in this and future years, the problem of year-end spending surges will be greatly reduced.
	Both the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, talked quite properly about the economic outlook and the uncertainties facing the UK economy in the light of changes in the world economy. I have never said that there were not risks to the UK economy resulting from the slowing of the world economy. The Budget Red Book predicted that growth in the G7 economies would halve this year and that world trade growth would slow sharply. The Red Book presented a realistic assessment of global prospects and the implications for the UK economy. We also acknowledged in the Budget, and continue to acknowledge now, that the UK cannot expect to remain immune from the weaker global outlook. But the new macro-economic policy frameworks have delivered low, stable inflation and sound public finances. I noticed that neither the noble Lord nor the noble Earl criticised what I said about the effect of our economic policies over the past four years. UK policy remains much better placed than in the past in the face of external developments. Despite falling industrial production in the world's major economies, the IMF, the OECD and the European Commission have in recent months forecast UK growth in line with the Budget projections.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, spoke about imbalances in the economy. I acknowledge that those are real concerns. Given the weakening of world growth this year, some widening of the current account deficit is to be expected and the Budget forecast a modest increase to 2.25 per cent of GDP this year. But the current account position is readily financeable and the forecast is small in comparison, for example, to the 4.5 per cent deficit recorded in 1989.
	Within the domestic economy, record employment growth has clearly increased household wealth and high consumer confidence is increasing consumer demand. As I have said, the UK cannot insulate itself from a downturn in the world economy. But the Government will steer a course of stability through the economic slowdown, sticking to their fiscal rules and supporting the decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee in continuing to meet the inflation target. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past by running a dual inflation and exchange rate target which would threaten stability and undermine prospects for sustained economic growth.
	Both noble Lords criticised the consideration of this matter and called for more debate on economic matters in the House. Of course, the formal answer is that that is a matter for the usual channels. My informal answer is that we have reached this most important debate at an absurd time and we have done so after an afternoon, if not an evening, of debate on relatively trivial matters; and I do not defend that. But it is not within the power of Government to avoid that. However, we had a full debate on economic policy in the debate on the Queen's Speech. Controlling as they do only 29 per cent of the voting power in this House, the Government do not have full control over what is debated in your Lordships' House.
	I am grateful to those who have taken part. I am sorry that it is so late. I commend the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before one o'clock.